DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI V. S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO., MUMBAI

ITA 4333/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4414 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY BAHADUR
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAYAK V DIXIT
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

, , E, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4333/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT 1 2( 2 ) R.NO.134, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD. FORT MUMBAI- 400001 / VS. S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO., 266 PERIN NARIMAN STREET FORT MUMBAI ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAAFS4705N REVENUE BY SHRI SANJAY BAHADUR, (DR) RESPONDENT BY SHRI VINAYAK V. DIXIT (AR) ! ' # / DATE OF HEARING : 23/12/2015 ' # / DATE OF ORDER: 8/01/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2 3, MUMBAI {(IN SHORT LD. CIT(A)} DATED 31.03.2014 FOR THE S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY SHRI VINAYAK V. DIXIT, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT AND BY SHRI SANJAY BAHADUR, DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACT ION OF LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(I A) CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF AIR FREIGHT, STEAMER FREIGHT, AIR INDIA CHARGES, IAAI PAYMENTS, THC ETC. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS. 3.1. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREAS THE ASSESSE E HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), CONTAIN ING DETAILED FINDINGS AND REFERENCE TO VARIOUS JUDGMENTS. 3.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITI ES AS WELL AS JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS CLEARING AND FORWARDI NG AGENT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF IMP ORT AND EXPORT CONSIGNMENTS OF ITS CLIENTS. DURING THE COUR SE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIR ED TO S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 3 SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AN D DEPOSITED ALONG-WITH A NOTE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE, VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 14-01-2013, SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF TDS MADE ON VARIOUS ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE LIKE RENT, COMPUTER REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, CWC RENT, ETC. HOWEVER, THE NOTE ON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE EXPENSES ON WHI CH TDS WAS NOT MADE WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO AO. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO SUBMIT THE REQUISIT E DETAILS FOR CONSIDERING THE ALLOWBILITY OF CORRESPO NDING EXPENDITURE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN THE MEANTIME, IT WAS GATHERED BY THE A. O. THAT THE TDS SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER D ATED 30-03-2012 HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS 'AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF C HAPTER XVIIB OF THE ACT ON PAYMENTS OF STEAMER CHARGES, AI R FREIGHT CHARGES, AIR INDIA CHARGES, AIR INDIA! IAAI CHARGES, WAREHOUSING CHARGES, DETENTION CHARGES, DEMURRAGE CHARGES, CFS CHARGES AND TERMINAL HANDLING CHARGES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED BY THE AO TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF NON-APPLICABI LITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF THE A BOVE MENTIONED ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE, AND WAS ALSO GIVEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISAL LOWED. 3.3. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 4 'A. PAYMENTS TO DIFFERENT PARTIES ARE MADE ON BEHAL F OF THE CLIENTS AND THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACTS WI TH DIFFERENT PARTIES. WE ACT AS THE INTERMEDIARIES BET WEEN THE IMPORTER / EXPORTER AND THESE PARTIES, B. PAYMENTS MADE ARE STRICTLY AS PER THE FIXED TARI FFS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CHOICE IN THEIR APPOINTMENTS NO R IN AMOUNTS TO BE PAID TO THEM, C. THERE IS NO CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT (WRITTEN OR ORAL) BETWEEN THE SERVICE PROVIDER (PORTS, AIR PORT S, CUSTOM AUTHORITIES ETC.) AND SERVICE, RECEIVER (IMP ORTER OR EXPORTER). D. THE PORTS, AIRPORTS, CUSTOM AUTHORITIES, CFSS AR E APPOINTED BY AND ARE FUNCTIONING UNDER THE AUTHORIT Y OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND NOT FOR/UNDER ANY EXPORTER, IMPORTER OR CHA. E. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIES ARE COMPULSORY AS THEY HAVE THE CUSTODY OF THE GOODS AND WILL NOT RELEASE THE SOME WITHOUT FULL PAYMENT. F. THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE PARTIES FOR THESE EXPENS ES ARE IN THE NAME OF OUR CLIENT.' THE A.O. TOOK NOTE OF THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION THA T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AGAINST SECTION 201(1)/201(IA) OF THE ACT WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT HE OBSERVED IN THE ORDER THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED AN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. OF THE TDS WING FOR HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT , THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,72,99,544.11 WAS DISALLOWED U/ S 40(A)(IA) AND THE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 5 3.4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMI SSIONS ELABORATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEFRAY VARIOUS EXPENSES AT THE TIME OF CLEARING, FORWARDING AND DELIVERING GOODS, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS. THE EXPENSES WHICH THE ASSESSEE DEFRAYS ON ITS CLIENT'S ACCOUNT ARE CLAIMED FROM THEM AS REIMBURSE MENTS. IN THE INVOICE RAISED ON THE CLIENTS THE ASSESSEE R AISES SEPARATE CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES DEFRA YED ON CLIENT'S BEHALF AND FEES FOR THE SERVICES RENDER ED ARE CLAIMED SEPARATELY. THE AO HAD REJECTED THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HE LD TO BE IN DEFAULT BY ITO-TDS FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAXES ON SUCH EXPENSES VIDE ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) DATED 30.03. 2012 FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2010-11. THE AO ALSO NOTED THE FACT THAT IN FIRST APPEAL THE CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO. NO.CIT(A)-14/IT-155/TDS RG.3/12-13 DATED 29.09.2012 HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CI T(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH REIMBURSEMENTS AND QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO-TDS, WARD 3(2) U/S 201 (1)/(1A) IN THE APPE LLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11. BUT, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.13,72,99,544/- BY INVOKING PROVISION S OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON TH E SOLE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 6 TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ATTAINED FINALITY. IN SUPPORT OF H IS CONTENTIONS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE FACTUAL ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO FILED COPIES OF VARIOUS JUDGME NTS IN ITS FAVOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . 3.5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THA T DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE BOT H ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW. FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BASIS, ON WHICH, LD. AO HAD MADE TH E DISALLOWANCE NO MORE EXISTED. THE IMPUGNED DISALLOW ANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO MAINLY FOR THE REASONS THAT ITO-TDS HAS HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT. BUT THE L D. CIT(A), IN THE APPEAL PASSED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED PAYMENTS AND THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. THE RELE VANT PARA OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN AN ALYSED IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 3.3.6. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ITO, TDS HAD HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1)/201(A) OF THE ACT DATED 30/03/2012, THE ITO(TDS) HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND, SINCE, TH E S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 7 ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DO SO, IT WAS HELD TO BE AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT'. HOWEVER, IN HIS APPELLATE OR DER FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-14/IT. 1 55/TDS RG.3/1 2-13 DATED 21/09/2012, LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS OF STEAM ER CHARGES/AIR FREIGHT CHARGES AS ALSO IN RESPECT OF WAREHOUSING CHARGES AND CFS CHARGES, ETC. THIS ORDE R OF THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE BY ANY HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 31/03/2013, THE A.O. HAS STATED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT AGA INST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT IS ONLY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. OF THE TDS WING FOR HOLDI NG THE ASSESSEE AS 'AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' FOR NON-DEDUCT ION OF TAX THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,72,99,544.11 IS DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA). NO OTHER REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR JUSTIFYING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM U/S 40(A)(IA). HENCE, WHEN THE ORDER OF THE ITO(TDS) OF HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS 'AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' HAS ITSELF BEEN HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED A ND CORRECT, AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII B, THEN FOR THE SAME ALLEGED DEFAULT, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE UPHELD. THUS, IT MAY BE NOTED FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THA T IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDU CTION OF TAX S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 8 AT SOURCE, THEN NO QUESTION WOULD ARISE FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA), AND ON THIS GROUND ITSE LF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.6. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, IT IS ALSO NOTED BY US T HAT THE DETAILED FINDINGS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) WHEREIN LD. CIT(A) HAS INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE ON FACTS WITH THE HELP OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE ARRIVING A T THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THESE TRANSACTIONS NO PROFIT ELE MENT WAS EMBEDDED AND IT WAS A CASE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPE NSES AND THUS ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE WAS SIMPLY FACILITATO R WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY CORRECT. IT IS NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAS PERSONALLY EXAMINED SAMPLE BILLS/INVOICES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE RECORDING THE FACTUAL FINDINGS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT HE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THESE TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS T DS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. CONCLUDING PARA OF LD. CIT (A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 3.3.20. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THIS CONNECTION. FOR EG., THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A BILL . NO.1/0/09/100399 DATED 14/05/2009 ON M/S CUMMINS INDIA LTD. (IMPORT), PUNE IN RESPECT OF JOB NO.1/07116/09-10 ON ACCOUNT OF 'STEAMER FREIGHT' PA ID TO CEVA FOR RS.65,086.10. THIS IS IN RESPECT OF THE INVOICE DATED 01/05/2009 CEVA REF M01001742 RAISED BY CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI ON CUMMIN S INDIA LTD. FOR RS.65,086.10. THE PAYMENT OF RS.65,0 86.10 S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 9 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT-OF STEAMER FREIGHT TO CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. A/C CUMMI NS INDIA LTD. VIDE CHEQUE NO.678427 VIDE PAYMENT VOUCH ER DATED 11 TH MAY, 2009. THE CONSIGNEE IN THE INVOICE RAISED BY CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IS SHOWN AS CUMMI NS INDIA LTD., PUNE. SIMILARLY, UPS SCS (INDIA) PVT. L TD., MUMBAI HAS RAISED TAX INVOICE UB00026732 DATED 3 RD AUGUST, 2009 ON ACCOUNT OF AIR FREIGHT ETC. ON CUMM INS INDIA LTD. FOR RS.51,672.29. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.51,672.29 TO UPS SCS (INDIA) PVT. LTD ., MUMBAI BY CHEQUE NO.807785 VIDE PAYMENT VOUCHER DATED 7 TH AUGUST, 2009 AND HAS RAISED A BILL NO.1/0/09101 387 DATED 10/08/2009 FOR THIS AMOUNT O F RS.51,672.29 ON CUMMINS INDIA LTD., PUNE. HERE AGAI N, THE CONSIGNEE IS CUMMINS INDIA LTD. AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING THE BILL ON ITS CLIENT FOR THE EXACT AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT. 3.3.21. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAMPLE BILLS, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE GOODS ARE BEING IMPORTED/EXPORTED BY THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY ACTING AS AN INTERMEDIARY ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS IN TERM S OF THE BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THEM. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF THE AIRLINES/SHI PPING LINES, ETC. WOULD, THEREFORE, REPRESENT THE EXPENDI TURE OF THE CLIENTS AND IT IS ONLY THE ACTUAL CONSIGNEES OR CONSIGNORS (I.E., CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE) WHO CAN CLAIM SUCH EXPENDITURES AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THEIR T OTAL S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 10 INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAMPLE BIL LS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE REIMBURSEMENTS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS IS BE ING CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACTUALS. 3.3.22 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,72,99,544/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE UPHELD WHEN THE PAYMENTS HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AIRLINES/SHIPPING LINES/CFSS/ICDS, ETC. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIE NTS AND WHEN THE EXPENDITURE RELATES TO THESE CLIENTS AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY ACTED AS AN INTERMEDIARY AND FACILITATOR FOR ITS CLIENTS AND THE PAYMENTS ARE REIMBURSABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACTUALS WITHOUT ANY ELEMENT OF PROFIT AND WHEN THE PRIVITY OF CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AIRLINE S/ SHIPPING TINES /CFSS/ICDS, ETC. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF EITHER SEC. 194C OR IN TE RMS OF SEC.1941 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS HELD IN THE VARIO US DECISIONS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE AS ALSO THE DECISI ON OF THE LD. CIT(A)-14, MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THE SAME AMOUNT. THE EXPENDITURE ALSO DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE MADE APPLICAB LE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ,T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,72,99,544/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S S.R. PUSALKAR AND CO. 11 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS, THEREFORE, DIRE CTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. 3.7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS REL IED BY HIM WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE. THESE FACTUAL FINDIN GS WERE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING, NO CONTRARY JUDGMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. I N VIEW OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FO R IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). SAME IS UPHELD. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! MUMBAI; % DATED ; 8 /01/2016 CTX? P.S/. . . #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '() / THE APPELLANT 2. *+() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , , - ( ' ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. , , - / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 01 *2 , , '# 23 , ! / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 45 6! / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, +0' * //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ! / ITAT, MUMBAI