M/S.ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4462/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6938 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BRAJENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Cost of acquisition; Capital expenditure
• Section: 13; 68; 27

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 4462/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ) M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS RAJYOG APRTMENT SAKHARAM KEER MARG SHIVAJI PARK, MAHIM MUMBAI-400 028 PAN : AAJFA8924C VS . ITO-21(1)(1) 103, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG MUMBAI-400 012. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL SATHE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI BRAJENDRA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 01 . 06 . 20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.08.2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [IN SHORT LEAR NED CIT(A)] DATED 3.4.2018 FOR A.Y. 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )33, ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE OF RS.3,29,800/-, BUILDING MAINTENANCE OF RS.5,00,000/ - AND WATER CHARGES OF RS.40,432/- ; WHICH WERE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST A PROJ ECT OF THE APPELLANT BY THE NAME OF EKNATH. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT, THE MUNICIPAL TAXES OF RS. 12,89,54 5/- PERTAINED TO EKNATH PROJECT AND NOT RUKMINI NIWAS AND CONSEQUENTLY E RRED IN ALLOWING THE SAID EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 33, MUMBAI ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF TAXIN G RS. 53,00,000/- BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR CREATION OF TENANCY RIGHT AS INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS 2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-33, MUMBAI ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,68,000/- BEING COMPENSATION PAID TO OLD TENANTS FOR SURRENDERING THEIR TENANCY RIGHTS. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 4 AND STRICTLY IN ALTERNATIVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-33 ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING COMPENSATION PAID TO OLD TENANTS FOR TERMINATION OF TENANCY RIGHT A S COST OF THE RUKMINI IMIWAS PROJECT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-33, MUMBAI ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 BY IGNORING THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE SAKAHRAM BHUVAD IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 3(6). 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER.DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE AO, VIDE LETTER' DATED 25.03.2015, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF AMOUNT OF RS.53 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM THREE PEOPLE AS PREMIUM AGAINST TENANCY RIGHTS GIVEN FOR THREE ROOMS IN RUKMINI NIWAS, AS U NDER: S.NO. NAME OF THE PERSON AMOUNT PREMISE 1. GIRISH S. GODBOLE 35,00,000/- TENEMENT NO. 19 ON 2 ND FLOOR OF RUKMINI NIWAS. 2. SURESH POTDAR 8,00,000/- TENEMENT NO.8 ON 1 ST FLOOR OF RUKMINI NIWAS. 3. RAHUL KELKAR 10,00,000/- TENEMENT NO.28 ON 3 RD FLOOR OF RUKMINI NIWAS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE RECEIPTS WERE AGAINS T TENANCY RIGHTS, IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AND WOULD BE TA XED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED PROPERTY TAX OF RS. 12,89,545/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE PROPORTIONATE TAXES FOR THE PREMISES. FURTHER, THE COMPENSATION PAID TO TWO PER SONS AMOUNTING TO RS.35,68,060/- FOR VACATING THE TENANCY RIGHTS WAS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AGAINST INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SINCE PURCHASE O F TENANCY RIGHTS WERE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 27.03.2015, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED, BUT NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED FROM THE AGREEMENT WITH SHRI GIRISH S. GODBOLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TENANCY AMOUNT OF RS.35 L AKHS AND MONTHLY RENT OF M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS 3 RS.49.20 PER MONTH. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MONTHLY RENT COULD NOT BE RS.49.20 PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALL Y BIFURCATED THE ACTUAL RENT AND CHARGED NOTIONAL RENT OF RS.49:20 PER MONT H AND TAKEN A LUMP SUM SO THAT THE RECEIPT COULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER EXPENSES. HENCE, THE ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS.53 LAKHS ALONG WITH ACTUAL RENT RECEI VED OF RS.83,089.50 WAS TAKEN AS RENT FROM PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE AO PROC EEDED TO TAKE THE ANNUAL VALUE AT RS.53,83,089.50 AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON @ 30%, THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ARRIVED AT RS.37,68,262.65. 4. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOSS OF RS. 1,66 ,904.80 FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, WHICH INCLUDED. RS.53,83,089.50 WHI CH WAS DEDUCTED. SIMILARLY PROPERTY TAX-OF RS. 12,89,545/- DEBITED T O THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOSS OF RS. 1,66,90 4.80 FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THIS INCLUDED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y AMOUNTING TO RS.53,83,089.50, WHICH WAS DEDUCTED. IT WAS OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.35,68,060/- AS COMPENSATION PAID TO VACA TE OLD TENANTS FROM THE ROOMS OF RUKMINI NIWAS, WHICH WAS NOT REVENUE IN NA TURE. IT WAS SEEN THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR GETTING THE TENANCY VACATED AND FOR ACQUIRING THE TENANCY RIGHTS OF THE RUKMINI NIWAS PREMISES. T HUS, THE AO PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THIS AMOUNT FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT. 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) HELD AS UN DER : 10.1 WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 (B ) AND (C), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM TENANCY RIGHTS ARE IN THE NATURE O F 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. MOREOVER, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS RS. 53,83 ,089.50/- AND AFTER GIVING A DEDUCTION @ 30% AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,14,926. 85/- U/S 24 (A), THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 37,68,162.65/- IS CORRECTLY TAX ED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. ONCE IT HAS BEEN HELD S O, THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE OF RS . 3,29,800/-, BUILDING MAINTENANCE OF RS. 5,00,000/- & WATER CHARGES OF RS . 40,432/-, CANNOT BE ALLOWED, SINCE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE, BUILDING INSU RANCE & WATER CHARGES ARE ALREADY TREATED AS ALLOWED UNDER DEDUCTION @ 30 %. REGARDING CLAIM OF PROPERTY TAX OF RS. 12,89,545/-, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CALL FOR THE ORIGINAL OF M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS 4 THE PAYMENT PROOFS AND ALLOW ONLY THOSE PROPERTY TAX PA YMENTS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE NCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 22. IT IS ON RECORD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, ONE TENANT MR. JAYANT JOSHI OF 'RUKMINI NIWAS' SURRENDERED HIS TENAN CY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF HIS PREMISES BEARING NO. 28 TO APPELLANT FOR TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS. 31,00,000/-,WHICH WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPE LLANT HAD ALSO PAID RS. 4,68,000/- TO SMT. SUSHMA LELE FOR SURRENDER OF H ER TENANCY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF HER PREMISES BEARING NO. 22. THUS TOTAL CON SIDERATION OF RS. 35,68,000/- WAS PAID WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT CLAIMING IT AS COMPENSATION TO THE TENANTS. 22.2 IN THIS REGARD, I FIND THAT PRIOR TO THE PAYMENTS OF RS. 35,68,000/- TO THE TWO TENANTS, THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY BECOME THE OW NER OF THE ENTIRE 'RUKMANI NIWAS' BY EXECUTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. TH E APPELLANT HAS ALSO ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ENCLOSED WITH T HE FORM NO. 35 THAT AS PER CLAUSE 16 ON PAGE NO. 13 OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE TENANTS AND OCCUPANTS ARE TO EXCLUSIVELY HELD BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, ANY FURTHER PAYMENT MADE TO A TENANT FOR SURRENDER OF HIS/ HER TE NANCY RIGHTS WILL ONLY ENHANCE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND AT MOST IT CAN BE C ONSIDERED AS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AS HELD BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. MISS PIROJA C. PATEL (2000) 242 ITR 582 (BOMBAY). 22.3 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AGREE WITH THE AO THAT TH E PAYMENT OF RS. 35,68,000/- CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE IN NATUR E AS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE FROM THE P & L A/C. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 22.4 IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THROUGH GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3(B) & (C), THE APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE RECEIPTS AGAINST TE NANCY RIGHTS OF RS.53 LACS FROM 3 PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO 3 ROOMS IN RUKMIN I NIWAS SHOULD RIOT BE TREATED AS RENT, IN THIS REGARD, I AGREE WITH THE AO TH AT THE APPELLANT-IS THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE . HENCE, AS PER SECTION 27 OF THE I.T. ACT ANY PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TENANCY HAS TO BE IN NATURE OF 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. IT IS ALSO HIGHLIGHTED BY THE AO THAT FROM THE AGREEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WITH SHRI GIRISH S GODBOL E, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED TENANCY AMOUNT OF RS. 35 LACS AND A RENT OF RS.49.20/- PER MONTH. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE RENT OF THE SAID PREMISES CANNOT BE RS.49.20/-P.M. ACCORDING TO THE AO, WHAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACTUALLY DONE WAS TO BIFURCATE THE ACTUAL RENT AND CHAR GED NOTIONAL RENT OF RS.49.20/- P.M. AND TAKEN A LUMP SUM AMOUNT SO THAT THE RECEIPT COULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER EXPENSES. THUS THE ENTIRE RECEI PT OF RS. 53 LACS ALONG WITH THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED RS. 83.089.50/- IS OF THE NATURE OF RENT FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY'. SINCE NO DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAID BY THE APPELLANT IS PROVIDED, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS TAKEN AS RS. 53,83,089.50/- AND A DEDUCTI ON @ 30% AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,14,926.85/- U/S 24 (A) IS ALLOWED. ACCORDI NGLY, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 37,68,162.65/- IS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS 5 I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ABOVE F INDINGS OF THE AO. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE RECEIPTS FROM TEN ANCY RIGHTS AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL NO. 3(B) & (C) ARE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON THIS ISSUE AS ARISING IN GROUND NO. 1 & 2. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WERE IN TERMS OF PROJECT EKNATH AND NOT AGAINST RUKMINI NIWAS. HENCE, HE CLAIMED THAT LEA RNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THESE ARE IN CONNECTION WITH INCOME FR OM HOUSE RENT AND HENCE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 8. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT THIS IS A FACTUAL ISSUE. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHER THESE EXPENDITURES ACTUALLY RELATE TO RUKMINI NIWAS WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE ASSUMED OR IN FACT IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT EKNA TH WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING. AFTER FACTUAL EXAMINATION THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL DECIDE AS PER LAW. 9. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF RS. 53,00,0 00/- RECEIVED FROM CREATION OF TENANCY RIGHT. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS TREATED IT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREAFTER HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 35,68,000/- AS COMPENSATION PAID TO VACATE O LD TENANTS AS NOT RELATED TO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE FIND THAT THIS IS A CONTRADICTORY APPROACH. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION COMPENSATION TO VACATE OL D TENANTS HAS TO BE ADJUSTED FROM THE RECEIPT OF RS. 53,00,000/- AND TH EREAFTER RESULTED AMOUNT CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CANVA SSED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AMOUNT RECEIVED A S PREMIUM PURSUANT TO GRANT OF TENANCY RIGHT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY TREATING THE RENT OFFERED AS TOO LOW. FOR EXAMINING THE VERACITY OF CLAIM OF RENTAL RECEIPT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDE R THE SAME IN LIGHT OF THE M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS 6 DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY ( INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1213 OF 2011 DATED 08/08/2014) . WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 10. APROPOS ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. BRIEF FACTS IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE LIST OF UNSECUR ED LOANS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED UNSECURED LOANS FROM THE FOLLOWING PAR TIES : SR.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY LOAN AMOUNT 1 DARSHANA SHARMA 8,00,000 2 SAKHARAM G. BHUVAD 2,75,000 3 SHRUSHTI SHARMA 50,000 4 SWARNIM SHARMA 90,000 5 VASANT MALDE 4,00,000 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO S UBMIT CONFIRMATIONS ALONG WITH COPY OF ITR, BANK STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS CALLED FOR, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,15,000/-TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED 11. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED ONLY PART AS UNDER : DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE AO, IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION LETTER, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI VASANT K. MALDE. S IMILARLY, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK-STATEMENT OF DARSHNA S. SHA RMA WERE FILED TOO TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS FROM THESE TWO PERSONS. IN MY OPINION, WITH THESE DOCUMENTS, THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS FROM THESE TWO PERSONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 2,00,000/- (RS. 4.00,000/- + RS. 8,00,000/-) IS ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER , IN THE CASE OF OTHER TWO PERSONS, SHRISHTI S. SHARMA MINOR AND SWARNIM S. SHARMA, INSPITE OF GIVING REPEATED OPPORTUNITY, NO DETAILS ARE SUBMITTED. AS FAR AS SAKHARAM GANGARAM BHUVAD IS CONCERNED, ONLY COPY OF CHEQUE D ATED 26.04.2011 IS SUBMITTED. NO OTHER DETAILS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OR CAP ACITY OF THE PERSON IS SUBMITTED. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE, IN MY OPINION, THE AP PELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF REMAINING LOAN OF RS. 4,15, 000/- RECEIVED FROM SAKHARAM GANGARAM BHUVAD, SHRISHTI S. SHARMA MINOR AND SWARNIM S. SHARMA ARE NOT ESTABLISHED. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,15,000/- U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IS CONFIRMED. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS RE LIEF OF RS. 12,00,000/-. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. M/S. ABHYANKAR DEVELOPERS 7 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE NOTE THAT ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE IMPUGN ED ADDITION AS NO DETAILS WHATSOEVER WAS SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, CERTAIN DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME AND GRAN TED PART RELIEF. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THI S ISSUE AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO EXAMINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E. 14. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.8.2021. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 10/08/2021 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// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI