JATIN S. THAKAR HUF, MUMBAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 29, MUMBAI

ITA 4179/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8029 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K MADHUSUDAN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHIT GANDHI LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Tangible material; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 263; 143(3); 143(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.4179/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) JATI N S.THAK AR HUF HITECH ASSOCIATES SHOP NO.15, VARDHMAN JUNCTION MULUND (W),MUMBAI 400 080 / VS. PR. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-29 MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAEHJ-6129-H ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NISHIT GANDHI - LD. AR R EVENU E BY : K.MADHUSUDAN - LD.CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/12/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/01/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. BY WAY OF THESE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 29, M UMBAI [PR. CIT] VIDE DATED 06/03/2018. THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US READS AS UNDER: - 1.1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 29,MUMBAI [THE CIT(A) FOR SHORT] ERRED IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 29(1)(5), MUMBAI [THE AO FOR SHORT] U/S 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT FOR SHORT] IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE. ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 2 2.1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT ERRED IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF AC T. 2.2 WHILE DOING SO THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECI ATE: (A) THE NECESSARY PRE-CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION AND COMPLETION OF A REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WERE NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESEN T CASES. (B) THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE CIT IN T HE PRESENT CASE WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE; (C) THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE CIT WAS P ASSED BY THE LD. AO AFTER MAKING THE NECESSARY INQUIRIES AND DUE APPLIC ATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES SO PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT; A ND; (D) THE ORDER/ DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE CIT IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER IS BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT . 2.3. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE CIT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 2.1 FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT HUF FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR IMPUGNED AY ON 24/09 /2010 AT RS.4.13 LACS WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 1 2/03/2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 23/03/2016 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS D ETERMINED AT RS.4.54 LACS AFTER ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FOR RS.0.41 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WORK CONTRACT SERVICES UNDER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NAMELY M/S HI-TECH ASSOCIATES. THE PERUSAL OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE APPARENTLY TRIGGERED UPON RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA REGARDING ASSESSEE BEING INDULGING IN PROCURING ACCOMMODATION / FICTITIOUS BILLS FROM MANY ENTITIES / PARTIES. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSE SSEE WAS SADDLED WITH ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.0.41 LACS AGAINST ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 2.2 SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS ORDER WAS SUBJECTED TO REVIS IONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. PR.CIT BY OBSERVING THAT OUTSTANDING SER VICE TAX REFLECTED IN ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 3 THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WAS NOT PAID BEFORE DUE DA TE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. ANOTHER OBSERVATION WAS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LABOR CHARGES OF RS.22.41 LACS AGAINST WHICH PARTY WISE D ETAILS AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE [TDS] AGAINST THE SAME WAS NOT O N RECORD SO AS TO VERIFY THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED OR FOR WHICH THE RECIPIENT HAD PAID TAX. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR INTEREST U/S 201(IA) TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE PAYEE AND ALSO LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271C FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT WHOLE OR ANY PART OF TAX . 2.3 ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/01/2018 WAS ISSUED O THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED COPY OF SERVICE TAX PAYMENT CHALLAN AND ALSO COPY OF TDS PA YMENT CHALLANS. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, LD. PR. CIT FORMED A N OPINION THAT LD. AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF SERVICE TAX PAYMENT WH ICH MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE ISSUE OF TD S WAS NOT EXAMINED BY LD. AO AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT REQUIRED RE VISION U/S 263. FINALLY, TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE W ITH FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: - IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT A ND TO THIS EXTENT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICE IS HEREBY SET ASIDE ON THE ISSUES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARA GRAPHS WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PASS THE ORDER UNDER GUIDANCE / SUPERVISION OF THE JT. CIT, RANGE-29(1), MUMBAI AT THE ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 4 EARLIEST PREFERABLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AND AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [ AR], SHRI NISHIT GANDHI, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN TH E PAPER- BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN ITIATED TO BRING TO TAX CERTAIN INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T. SINCE THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY LD. AO FOR WHICH REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS WAS FULFILLED AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER COULD NOT BE TER MED AS ERRONEOUS. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED IS THE FACT THAT THE ISSUES NOT ED BY LD. PR.CIT WERE NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME PERTAINED TO ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS ALREADY CONCLUDED U/S 143(1 ) ON 12/03/2011 AND THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE TIME BARRED BY LAW. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT REVISION WAS SOUGHT MERELY ON ERRONEOUS GROUND THAT FORM 26A AND CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT WAS NOT FURNISHED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SINCE FORM 2 6A WAS NOTIFIED ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 12/09/2012 AND THE SAME WAS N OT APPLICABLE FOR IMPUGNED AY. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. AO H AD ALREADY MADE SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES REGARDING COMPLIANCE OF TDS PR OVISIONS DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER C OULD NOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. PER CONTRA, LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT NON- CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN VITAL ASPECTS BY LD. AO AS NOTED BY LD. PR.CIT MADE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 5 4.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS PLA CED BEFORE US & JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BEFORE US. UPON DUE C ONSIDERATION, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 12/03/2011 AND THE ASSE SSEE WAS ASSESSED BY WAY OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE FIRST-TIME U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 148 ON 23/03/2016. IT IS ALSO UND ISPUTED FACT THAT THE ONLY SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS A LOGICAL DEDUCTION, NO OTHER ISSUE INCLUDING THE ISSUES AS NOTED BY LD. PR.CIT WAS EVER A SUBJECT MA TTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THOSE ISSUES HAD ALREA DY ATTAINED FINALITY BY WAY OF 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 TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. AS PER LD. ARS SUBMISSIONS, TH E PERIOD IS 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 ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 6 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. 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 APEX COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS ALGENDRAN FINANCE LIMITED [293 ITR 1] & HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS LARK CHEMICALS LIMITED [55 TAXMANN.COM 446]. 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 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. ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 7 4.5 HAVING SAID SO, WE FIND THAT THE FACT OF THE PR ESENT CASE GETS 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 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 BESIDES ABOVE LEGAL ISSUE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE OTHER ARGUMENTS ALSO AS RAISED BY LD. AR SINCE FORM 26A WAS BROUGHT TO STATUTE ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 12/09/2012 AND THE SAME WAS NOT AP PLICABLE FOR IMPUGNED AY AND THEREFORE, LD. PR.CIT, IN OUR OPINI ON, PROCEEDED ON ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 8 WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS. FURTHER, THE PERUSAL OF REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 24/02/2016 & 22/03/2016 FILED BEFORE LD. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REVEAL THAT CERTAIN INQUIRI ES AS TO THE FULFILMENT OF TDS OBLIGATIONS WERE CERTAINLY MADE BY LD. AO AN D THE SAME WERE REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID REPLIES DEMO NSTRATE THAT DUE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY LD. AO AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDI TIONS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER COULD NOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT INQUIRIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR A PARTICULAR VIEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE MATTER. 4.7 VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE INVOCATION OF REVISI ONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. PR.CIT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYE S OF LAW AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WE ORDER SO. 5. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MANO J KUMAR AGGARWAL) !' / JUDICIAL MEMBER !' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; ! DATED : 02/01/2019 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ITA NO.4179/MUM/2018 JATIN S.THAKAR HUF ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 9 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % / CIT CONCERNED 5. &' ( , ( , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ')*+ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.