MANOJ METALS, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4294/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4254 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Corroborative evidences; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 201; 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH , A M AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, J M / I.T.A. NO. 4294 /MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 201 1 - 12 ) M/S. MANOJ METALS 14, 1 ST CARPENTER STREET, NULL BAZAR, GULALWADI, MUMBAI - 400004. / VS. ITO 19(2)(3) ROOM NO.218, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI - 7 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM1606Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DAT E OF HEARING: 23 .01.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13. 03 .2019 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21 .0 3 .2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 29 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2011 - 1 2 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 ON THE BASIS OF LIST UPLOAD ED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE MAT DEPARTMENT WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME U/S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS BASED ON EVIDENCES IF ANY AVAILABLE WITH THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREBY THE PROCESS OF NATURAL JUSTICE WAS DENIED AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. REVENUE BY: SHR I RIDDHI MISHRA (SR. AR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.P. CHHAJED ITA NO. 4294 /M/2017 A. Y. 2 011 - 12 2 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.32,28.607/ - CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE INFLATED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PURCH ASES WERE GENUINE PURCHASES BEYOND DOUBT AND SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT MATERIALS, FULL QUANTITATIVE STOCK RECORDS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED, ALL THE GOODS PURCHASED FROM THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN BACKED BY CORRESPONDING SALES WHICH ARE ACCEPTED TO BE GENUINE, NOTHI NG HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO THAT MONEY HAS BEEN EXCHANGED IN THE HANDS IN LIEU OF PAYMENT MADE FOR THESE PURCHASES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT/OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,65,763 / - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) . THEREAFTER, AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.) WING, MUMBAI IN WHICH IT WAS CONVEYED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE ENTRY OF BOGUS PURCHASE FROM 2 PARTIES NAMELY (I) HARI OM TRADERS IN SUM OF RS.2,21,10,48 7/ - AND MAYUR ENTERPRISES IN SUM OF RS.2,02,64,984/ - TOTAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,23,75,471/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT. NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE AO RAISED THE ADDITION @ 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE IN SUM OF RS.4,23,75,471/ - I.E. IN SUM OF RS.52,96,934/ - . THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.58,62,700/ - . FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED ON THE ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE US , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO S .1 & 2 : - 4. BOTH THE ISSUES ARE BEING NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THESE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT PRESSED. ISSUE NO 3 : - ITA NO. 4294 /M/2017 A. Y. 2 011 - 12 3 5. UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO R S.32,28,607/ - . AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN REMANDED BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA. NO. 4293/M/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 DATED 16.11.2018 BEFORE THE AO T HEREFORE, THIS ISS UE IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE RESTORED ON SIMILAR LINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS ALSO SPECIFICALLY ARGUED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS LIABLE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTION. THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2018 IN ITA. NO. 4293/M/2017 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS ON THE FILE IN WHICH IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE AO IN VIEW OF THE CERTAIN GUIDELINES RAISED THEREIN. THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA NO. 9, 10 & 11 WHICH ARE HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER.: - 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND THAT CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION AFTER GIVING RELIEF OF GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRECISE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER: - 6.3. THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE P ARTIES WERE NOT PROVIDED BY T HE AO. THE AO TRIED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES BY ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S.133(6) WHICH WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. WHEN HIS EFFORTS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS FAILED, HE MADE THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPO SED TO HAVE MADE THE PURCHASES, AS THE ASSESSEE'S WITNESSES AND ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION, WHICH HE FAILED TO DO. IN ANY CASE, AS THE PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ADDRESS GIVEN, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE AO PRODUCIN G THEM FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. MAINTENANCE OF STOCK RECORDS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES RECORDED ARE FROM THE PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS. MOREOVER, IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, HE ONLY DOUBTED THE T RANSACTIONS, OF THE ALLEGED PARTIES MENTIONED SUPRA. AS THE PARTIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES FROM THESE PARTIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT. ALSO, NO CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THESE PARTIES . THEREFORE, THE AO PRESUMED THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM SOME OTHER PARTIES IN THE GREY MARKET, PROBABLY AT A LESSER RATE. THE AO HAS ONLY IN TIMATED THE ADDITIONAL PROFIT MARGIN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PURCHAS E WHICH WAS 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. ITA NO. 4294 /M/2017 A. Y. 2 011 - 12 4 6.3.1. COMING TO THE ADDITION MADE, THE HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'C' BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS. ACIT 58 ITD 0428 HELD THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, 25% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ACCOUNTED THRO UGH FICTITIOUS INVOICES HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKES V/S CIT 316 ITR 0274 DEALT WITH SIMILAR CASE WHERE SOME OF THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS WHO HAD ISSUED BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE AS THEY W ERE NOT TRACEABLE. THE GOODS MUST HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTIES. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THESE ALLEGED PURCHASES BEING INF LATED COULD NOT BE RULED OUT AND THEREFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF CIT(A) AND THE I TAT DISALLOWING 25% OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SUCH P ARTIES. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH 356 ITR 0451 HELD THAT ONCE THE SALE IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO, THE VERY BASIS OF PURCHASES COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED. NOT THE ENTIR E PURCHASE PRICE COULD BE DISALLOWED BUT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ESTIMATION VARIES WITH THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND NO UNIFORM YARDSTICK COULD BE ADOPTED. GIVEN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I FIND IT REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AT 12.5%. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO @12.5% ON THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES IS UPHELD. HOWEVER, THE AO IS DIRECTEDTOREDUCE THE PROFIT ALREADY D ECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THESE PURCHASES. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED 10. I HAD ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE B ENCH AS RELIEDON BY THE AR IN THE CASE OF RAVI STEEL INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), WHEREIN PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE T RIBUNAL WAS AS UNDER: 14. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED B Y LEARNED AR AND DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ME IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, I FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, AO HAS INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CALLED FOR VARIO US DETAILS ABOUT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED PURCHASE BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, BANK STATEMENT SHOWING PAYMENT MADE TO THE PARTIES, CONFIRMATION OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PURCH ASE PARTY, COPY OF STOCK REGISTER, COPY OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS AND COPY OF DELIVERY CHALLANS. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS OF CORRESPONDING SALES AFFECTED BY IT DURING BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR THE COPY OF STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PURCHASES FROM THESE PARTIES WERE ALLEGED AS BOGUS BY THE AO HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, I FOUND THAT PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WAS GROSSLY VITIATED. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT REOPENING WAS BASED ON THE VALID REASON, WHERE AO WAS HAVING NECESSARY PRIMAFACIE MATERIAL JUSTIFYING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148. I FOUND THAT MATERIAL W ITH REGARD TO ITA NO. 4294 /M/2017 A. Y. 2 011 - 12 5 SUPPLY OF GOODS BY THE SUSPICIOUS DEALER WAS AVAILABLE TO THE AO ONLY AND IT WAS NOT SHARED WITH THE ASSESSEE. AO WAS RELYING ON THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. IF AO WAS RELYING UPON THE STATEMENTS OF THESE PARTIES, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO PR OVIDE THE COPIES OF THEIR STATEMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO AFFORD CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SUPPLIERS. THERE IS NO BAR OF UTILISING THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL, BUT WHEN THE AO WAS I DENTIFYING TO MAKE SUCH ADDITION HOW CAN HE DEPRIVE THE A SSESSEE TO ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL THAT WAS BEING USED AGAINST ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO PROVERBIAL WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS REGARDING REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIALS AND CROS S - EXAMINATION OF THE SUPPLIERS, THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE MANDATE THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND ITSELF I.E., THEY SHOULD BE SUPPLIED THE MATERIAL THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE USED AGAINST THEM. IN RESPECT OF VIOLATION OF PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER (SUPRA) OBSERVED AS UNDER: - '...ACCORDING TO US,NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESS ES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY IN AS MUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE 1596 - 97/M/16 - FANCYWEAR STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS - EXAMINE, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , NO SUCH OPTION WAS GRANTED AND THE AFORESAID PLE A IS NOT EVEN DEALT BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY.....' 15. WE ALSO FOUND THAT BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, AO & CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRESPONDING SALES AND EVEN PURCHASES WERE ACCEPTED. AO ONLY MADE THE ADDITION BY ESTIMATING FURTHER PROFIT OF 5% ON SUCH PURCHASES. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT SO MADE BY THE C HEQUES NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD PROVING THAT SUPPLIERS HAVE WITHDRAWN CASH IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEPOSITING THE CHEQUES OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS AND ESTIMATING FURTHER PROFIT OF 5% ON THE ALLEGED SUSPICION PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US I FOUND THAT GENUINENESS OF THE P URCHASES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED IN SO FAR AS NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE BOGUS SUPPLIERS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AO HAS PRESUMED THAT PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM OTHER PARTIES IN THE GREY MARKET PROBABLY AT A LESSER RATE, TH EREFORE, AFTER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA PRINTS 5 TTD 428 UPHELD THE ADDITION AFTER REDUCING THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND ANY OBSERVATION BY THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES WITH RESPECT TO FURNISHING OF THE DELIVERY CHALLANS, CONFIRMATION OF RESPECTIVE PARTIES, LEDGER ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE PARTY, ITA NO. 4294 /M/2017 A. Y. 2 011 - 12 6 COPY OF STOCK REGISTER, COPY OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS AND COPY OF DELIVERY CHALLANS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF RAVI STEEL AS RELIED ON BY LEARNED AR, I FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THESE DETAILS BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED ENTIRE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. I N ALL FAIRNESS, I RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO RE - VERIFY THE DELIVERY CHALLANS CONFIRMATION OF RESPECTIVE PARTIES ETC., AND FOR DECIDING HE ISSUE AFRESH AS P ER LAW.I DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FINDING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED ON SIMILAR LINES, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORED TH E ISSUE BEFORE THE AO TO DECIDE THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR GUIDELINES AS DIRECTED BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 IN ITA. NO. 4293/M/2017 DATED 16.11.2018 . NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT AN OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 .0 3 .2019 . SD/ - ( M. BALAGANESH ) SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 13. 03 .2019 V IJAY ITA NO. 4294 /M/2017 A. Y. 2 011 - 12 7 COPY OF THE ORDER F ORWARDED 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. //TRUE COPY//