ITO-4(3)(1), MUMBAI V. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4277/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4859 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147; 68; 148; 133(6); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2009-10 ITO-4(3)(1), ROOM NO.648, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 13/21, 303, 3 RD FLOOR, PANJRAPOLE LANE, MUMBAI 400 004 PAN: AAACN1470C (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : DR. P. DANIEL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 14.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.02.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2009-10. ITA NO.4277/M/2017 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS .1,00,00,000/- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHERE T HE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE L ENDERS WERE NOT PROVED. ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME ON 21.10.2007 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,01 ,22,230/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 21.03.2014 WHEREIN AO NOTED THAT FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM DGIT, INVESTIGATION, MUMBAI TO TH E EFFECT THAT THE SEARCH ON PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN GROUP ON 01.10.2010 REVEALED CERTAIN FACTS THAT THE SAID GROUP WAS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF BOGU S UNSECURED LOANS, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, BOGUS BIL LS AS WELL AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ETC AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES . THE AO ,ON THE BASIS OF SAID INFOR MATION, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES FROM 12 PARTIES AS PER DETAILS BELOW: SR. NO. NAME OF HAWALA ENTRY OPERATOR AMOUNT A.Y. 1 ALKA DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LTD. 1,000,000 16.10.06 2 NAKSHATRA BUSINESS P LTD. (HEMA TRADING CO. P. LTD.) 500,000 08.01.07 3 NAKSHATRA BUSINESS P LTD. (HEMA TRADING CO. P. LTD.) 1,000,000 08.01.07 4 JAVDA INDIA IMPEX LTD. 1,000,000 16.10.06 5 KUSH HINDUSTAN ENTERTAINMENT 500,000 05.01.07 6 KUSH HINDUSTAN ENTERTAINMENT 1,000,000 08.01.07 7 LEXUS INFOTECH LTD. 500,000 16.01.07 8 LEXUS INFOTECH LTD. 1,000,000 08.01.07 9 OLIVE OVERSEAS P LTD. (REALGOLD TRADING CO. P. LTD.) 1,000,000 16.10.06 ' 10 VANGUARD 3EWELS LTD. 500,000 15.11.06 12 YASH V JEWELS LTD, 1,000,000 08.2.06 ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 3 TOTAL 1,00,00,000 AND THUS THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,00,00,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE AO, THE ASSES SEE FILED VARIOUS INFORMATION COMPRISING COPY OF IT RETURN, A UDIT REPORT, BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ALONG WITH E NCLOSURES FROM TIME TO TIME. THE AO OBSERVED ON THE BASIS OF SAID DOCUMENTS THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNTAS THERE WAS AN AD DITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE SAID SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PRE MIUM RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 07.10.2014 SUBMITTING A COPIES OF CONFIRMATI ON OF SHAREHOLDER AND VARIOUS OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SEC TION 133(6) TO 8 PARTIES OUT OF WHICH ONLY NOTICE WAS SERVED TO FIVE PARTIES AND IN RESPECT OF REMAINING THREE THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITIES RETURNED THE LETTER WITH THE REMARKS NOT KNOWN AND LEFT. HOWEVER, ALL THE 8 PARTIES FILED THE REPLY. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 05.03.2015 WHICH WA S REPLIED ON 12.03.2015. FINALLY, THE AO BRUSHING ASIDE THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE LOAN RAISED WERE JUST ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF SH ARE CAPITAL, SHARE PREMIUM AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM HAWA LA OPERATORS BEING CONTROLLED, MANAGED BY SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND FINALLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR NOT PROVING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWOR THINESS OF ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 4 THE PARTIES BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03. 2016. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.3.27 THUS, IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DONE EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO PROVE THE 3 INGREDIENTS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SA TISFACTORY NATURE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS HAD SHIFTED TO THE AO. IF THE AO WAS STILL NOT SATISFIED, HE HAD THE OPTION OF MAKING IN QUIRIES FROM THE ALLEGED SHARE APPLICANTS BY SUMMONING THEM. HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE DID NOT ANY SUCH THING. FURTHER, IF THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH WHAT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO HIM BY THE APPELLANT, HE WAS DUTY BOUND TO SPECIFY WHAT MORE MATERIAL HE WANTED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH. THE AO NEVER ASKED FOR ANY FURTHER MATERIAL, THOUGH TIME AND AGAIN THE APPELLANT ASKED IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THIS LEADS TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO COULD NOT THINK OF ANY FURTHER MATERIAL TO ASK FOR AND PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIMS, RELYING UPON THE INFORMATION/MATERIAL, WHICH HE NEVER EVEN BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ANY REBUTTAL. THE UNEQUIVOCAL CONCLUSION IS THA T ALL THE 3 INGREDIENTS HAVING BEEN SATISFIED, THE IMPUGNED SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y HAVE TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY AND THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN HAVING DISREGARDED OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. NO COGENT MATER IAL WAS ADDUCED BY HIM TO SHOW THAT LOANS WERE UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE IM PUGNED ADDITION OF UNDER THE HEADING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS MADE IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, FAILS ON SEVERAL COUNTS - (1) RELIANCE ON EVIDENCE THAT IS TOTALLY I NADEQUATE; (2) FAILURE TO MAKE AVAILABLE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL (REPORTS, STATEMEN TS ETC.) FORMING BASIS FOR ACTION BY THE AO; (3) FAILURE TO GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES, WHOSE STATEMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RELIEF U PON; AND (4) FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE SATISFACTORY NATURE OF THE EXPLANATIO N /EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN IDENTITY OF CREDITORS, CREDITW ORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. HENCE THE IMP UGNED ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED AND RELIED ABOVE BY ME AND ALSO CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED ABOVE, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEADING SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNT CANNOT BE SU STAINED AND THEREFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,00,000/ -. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TO BE TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. 5. THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SUFFERED FROM SEVERAL INFIRMITIES LEG AL AND FACTUAL FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ADDITION QUA MONEY RAISED FROM HAWALA ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 5 OPERATORS HAS BEEN DELETED DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E SEARCH AND SEIZURE ON SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND GROUP REVEALE D THAT THE ENTIRE GROUP WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDI NG ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY WITHOUT DOING ANY BUSINE SS. EVEN THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE DIRECTORS OF THESE CO MPANIES REVEALED THAT NO BUSINESS WAS BEING DONE AND ONLY I T WAS A CONVERSION RACKET BY CHARGING COMMISSION ONLY. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE MERE FILING OF EVIDENCES WOULD N OT AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THAT THE MONEY FLOWED FROM THES E ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM WERE GENUINE AND THUS THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS FULL OF INFIRMITIES AND SHOULD BE REVERSED. 6. THE LD. A.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AR DEFEN DING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER T AKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ASPECTS. THE LD A R SUBMITTED THAT THE MERE GENERAL ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES WHO INVESTED MONEY IN THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY WOULD NOT RENDER THE TRANSACTIONS AS NON GENUINE AN D WITHOUT ANY CAPACITY TO LEND. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE NECESS ARY DOCUMENTS TO PROVE ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS AS ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COPIES SHARE APPLICATION FORM GIVEN BY THE SHARE APP LICANTS ALONG WITH LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, CONFIRMATION LETTERS, PA NS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR INCOME TAX RETURN FILED, BALAN CE SHEET & PROFIT AND LOSS A/C OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIE S, CIN MASTER DATA OF COMPANIES FROM MCA, BANK ACCOUNTS TO SHOW THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, MOA & AA OF ALL COMPANIES AND SHARE CERTIFICATES ISSUED WERE F ILED. DESPITE ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 6 THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INVESTIGATION OR VERIFICATION TO ASCERTAIN THE SANCTITY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AND ACTED ON THE STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY OF PRAVIN KUM AR JAIN GROUP COMPANIES. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN WHICH SHIFTED ON IT WHEN ASSESSEE FILED ALL DOCUMENTS. THE LD AR FINALLY PRAYED BEFOR E THE BENCH THAT IN VIEW OF FACTS, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH IS OTHERWISE A VERY DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE YEARS TOGETHER THERE ARE 12 PARTIES OUT OF WHICH 3 PARTIES, I.E. M/S. JAVDA IND IA IMPEX LTD., KUSH HINDUSTAN ENTERTAINMENT LTD. AND OLIVE OVERSEA S PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS REALGOLD TRADING CO. P. LTD.) WE RE ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S, KOMAL AGROTECH PVT. LTD. V. I.T.O. HYDERABAD WHEREIN THE ITAT HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 IS BAD IN LAW. THESE COMPANIES ARE THE ASSESSEE'S SHAREHOLDERS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 394ITR 680 (BORN) HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 WOUL D NOT BE APPLICABLE TO SHARE PREMIUM PRIOR TO 01.04.2013 AND HENCE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING TH IS DECISION AND HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL BE DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS:- 1. KOMAL AGROTECH PVT. LTD. V. I.T.O. (ITAT HYDERAB AD) 2. M/S. RUSHABH ENTERPRISES V. A.C.I.T. (BOM H.C.) 3. RELIANCE CORPORATION V. I.T.O. (MUM ITAT) 4. S.D.B ESTATE PVT. LTD. V I.T.O. (MUM ITAT) 5. PRIN. C.I.T. V. S.D.B ESTATE PVT. LTD. (BOM H.C. ) ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 7 6. DY. C.I.T. V. ALCON BIO SCIENCE P. LTD. (MUM ITA T) 7. VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. UOI (BOM H.C .) 8. C.I.T. V GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (201 7) 394 ITR 680 (BOM) IN VIEW OF ALL THESE FACTS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE DISMISSED FOR BOT H THE YEARS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CA SE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MONEY BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY FROM 12 PARTIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200 6-07 FROM SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN GROUP COMPANIES. A SEARCH CO NDUCTED ON THE SAID GROUP REVEALED THAT THE SAID GROUP WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING HAWALA ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS. THIS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE DIRECTORS DURING THE RECORDING OF THEIR STATEMENTS DURING SEARCH. SO THE AO TREATED T HE ENTIRE MONEY RAISED AS BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY JUST ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF THE DIRECT ORS OF THESE COMPANIES. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT THAT THE ASSESSEES NAME WAS NOWHERE MENTIONED BY THE SAID ENTITIES DURING SEARC H TO BE BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH ENTRIES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED VARIOUS EVIDENCES SU CH AS SHARE APPLICATION FORMS ALONG WITH LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE , CONFIRMATION LETTERS, COPIES OF PAN NUMBERS, COPIES OF ITR ACKNO WLEDGMENT, BALANCE SHEETS, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS, MASTER DA TA OF COMPANIES FROM MCA WEBSITE, COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS TO EVIDENCE THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, COPIES OF MA & AA AND SHARE CERTIFICATES OF ALL THE COMPANIES . WE FURTHER ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 8 FIND THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED INTO THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THESE COMPANIES ARE ACTIVE ON THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS. DESPITE THE FILIN G ALL THESE INFORMATION WITH THE AO, HE DID NOT CONDUCTED ANY V ERIFICATION OR INVESTIGATION TO DIG OUT THE TRUTH BUT ACTED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS DULY PROVED THE GENUI NENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES BY FIL ING ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT OUT OF THE 12 PARTIES , 3 PARTIES, I.E. M/S. JAVDA INDIA IMPEX LTD., KUSH HINDUSTAN ENTERTAINMENT LTD. AND O LIVE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS REALGOLD TRADING C O. P. LTD.) WERE ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S, KOMAL AGROTECH PVT. LTD. V. I.T.O. HYDERABAD WHEREIN THE ITAT HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 IS BAD IN LAW. THESE COMPANIE S ARE THE ASSESSEE'S SHAREHOLDERS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 394ITR 680 (BORN) HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO SHARE PREMIUM PRIOR TO 01.04.2013 AND HENCE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 IS DIREC TED TO BE DELETED . THEREFORE, AFTER PERUSING ALL THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD AR AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS A CORRECT ,VERY REASONED AND DETAILED ONE AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.4277 & 4278/M/2017 M/S. NITYANAND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 9 ITA NO.4278/M/2017 9. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDEN TICAL TO THE ONE AS STATED ABOVE IN ITA NO.4278/M/2016 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THEREFORE, OUR FINDING IN ITA NO.4278/M/2016 FOR A. Y. 2007-08, MUTATIS MUTANDIS WOULD APPLY TO THIS APPEAL AS WELL . ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.02.2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13.02.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.