ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI V. DINESH C SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 4501/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8155 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R MURLIDHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ACIT - 19(1) 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI - 400007 VS. SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH 609, PRASAD CHAMBERS, TATA ROAD NO. 1 & 2, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI - 400004 PAN NO. AAIPS6060L APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR, DR ASSESSEE BY : MR. R. MURLIDHAR , AR DATE OF HEARING : 14 /09/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/12/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2011 - 12. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 30, MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER, ON THE F ACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAME PROPORTIONATE FOR THE COST OF SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 2 CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FY 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 BE MAINTAINED AND THE ENTIRE GAINS ON THE COST OF LAND AND BUILDING BE TA XED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURE (NEW ASSET) AFTER DEMOLITION OF THE OLD STRU CTURE (OLD ASSET) CAN BE TREATED AS IMPROVEMENT OF THE OLD AS SET AND ALSO HOLDING THAT COST OF ACQUISITION WILL BE FROM THE DATE OF HOLDING OLD ASSET AND NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 ON 30.09.2011 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20,10,11,509/ - . IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED INCOME OF RS.19,93,64,262/ - UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS WHICH INCLUDES LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ON SALE OF HATKESH PREMISES AT RS.9,62,06,609/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE LTCG OF RS.9,62, 06,609/ - ARISING ON ASSIGNMENT OF FLAT NO. 201, 301, 401 OF RAJ RAHUL BUILDING TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSIGNEES. THE TRANSACTIONS RESULTING IN THESE GAINS ARE REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS VIZ HATKESH BUNGALOW CONSTRUCTION COST A/C AND HATKESH BUNGALOW A/C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) CALLED FOR THE DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND OBSERVED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW RAJ RAHUL BUILDING HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO HATKESH BUNGALOW. THE AO DREW UP THE FOLLO WING CHART IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF OLD BUNGALOW AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE: HARESH HARKANT MEHTA, VIPUL HARKANT MEHTA, SHAILESH HARSUMAN MEHTA AND SHOBHANA SHAILESH MEHTA INHERITED TWO BUILDINGS SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 3 PRIOR TO 25/02/1993 CONSTRUCTED ON LEASE HOLD PLOT NO. 13[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SAID PLOT'](FORMING PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLOT NO 3/2 IN JUHU VILE P ARLE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME)EACH INHERITING 1/4TH OF UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PLOT TOGETHER WITH THE OLD BUILDINGS. THE SAID PLOT WAS OWNED BY THE HATKESH CHS LTD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE SOCIETY', JUHU SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI 400056. 25/02/1993 BY DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 25/02/1993, SHAILESH HARSUMAN MEHTA ASSIGNED HIS 1/4TH UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PLOT NO. 13 TOGETHER WITH THE OLD BUILDINGS STANDING THEREON FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF LEASE TO THE ASSESSEE SHRI DINESH C SHAH. BY DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 25/02/1993, HARESH HARKANT MEHTA ASSIGNED HIS 1/4TH UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PLOT NO. 13 TOGETHER WITH THE OLD BUILDINGS STANDING THEREON FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF LEASE TO THE ASSESSEE SHRI DINESH C SHAH. BY DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 25/02/1993, VIPUL HARKANT MEHTA ASSIGNED HIS 1/4TH UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PLOT NO. 13 TOGETHER WITH THE OLD BUILDINGS STANDING THEREON FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF LEASE TO THE ASSESSEE SHRI DINESH C SHAH BY DEE D OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 25/02/1993, SHOBHANA SHAILESH MEHTA ASSIGNED HER 1/4TH UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PLOT NO 13 TOGETHER WITH THE OLD BUILDINGS STANDING THEREON FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF LEASE TO THE SMT. HEMLATA DINESH SHAH, WIFE OF THE ASSE SSEE SHRI DINESH C SHAH. BY THE ABOVE DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT SHRI DINESH C SHAH WAS ASSIGNED 3/4TH UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PLOT NO 13 TOGETHER WITH THE OLD BUILDINGS STANDING THEREON OR THE RESIDUE OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF LEASE, WHILE SMT. HEMLATA DINESH SH AH WAS ASSIGNED 1/4TH UNDIVIDED SHARE. 18/03/1993 THE TRANSFER OF SHARES (EARLIER HELD BY THE TRANSFERORS)IN THE HATKESH CHS LTD. WAS APPROVED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI DINESH C SHAH AND HIS WIFE, SMT. HEMLATA DINESH SHAH TENANTS SURRENDER THEIR TENANCY RIGHTS AND VACATE THE PREMISES SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 4 2004 OCCUPIED IN THE OLD BUILDINGS 14/12/2006 APPLICATION MADE TO THE SOCIETY FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PLOT BY CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING [KNOWN AS RAJ RAHUL] THEREON. 02/03/2007 T HE SOCIETY ACCORDED ITS APPROVAL/ NOC FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PLOT, UTILIZE, CONSUME TDR THEREIN BY CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING AFTER DEMOLISHING THE OLD BUILDINGS 27/04/2007 05/04/2007 FY 2007 - 08 DEMOLITION OF OLD BUILDINGS 27/07/2007 COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MCGM VALIDATED UPTO 23/03/2010 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSISTING OF GROUND AND PODIUM WITH EIGHT FLOORS, EACH FLOOR WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL FIAT 29/08/2007/ 05/02/2008 PURCHASE OF TDR FROM M/S EVERSMILE CONSTRUCTION CO PVT. LTD. / M/ S DYNAMIX REALTY 22/09/2009 MOU ASSIGNING FLAT NO 201 ADMEASURING 1945.30 SQ FT CARPET AREA TO MR. CHETAN PRAKASH JAIN FOR STRUCTURAL OWNERSHIP BASIS WITH ONE STACK PARKING TOGETHER WITH UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO USE COMMON A REAS AND FACILITIES 22/09/2009 MOU ASSIGNING FLAT NO 301 ADMEASURING 1945.30 SQ FT CARPET AREA TO VISHAL PRAKASH JAIN FOR STRUCTURAL OWNERSHIP BASIS WITH ONE STACK PARKING TOGETHER WITH UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO USE COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES 22/09/2010 MOU ASSIGNING FLAT NO 401 ADMEASURING 1945.30 SQ FT CARPET AREA TO MRS. MANJULA PRAKASH JAIN AND MR. JIGAR PRAKASH JAIN FOR STRUCTURAL OWNERSHIP BASIS WITH ONE STACK PARKING TOGETHER WITH UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO USE COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES 05 /04/2010 DATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF RAJ RAHUL BUILDING 28/04/2010 DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENTS ASSIGNING FLAT NOS. 201, 301, 401 TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSIGNEES 01/09/2010 DATE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 5 THE AO INFERRED FROM THE ABOVE CHART THAT THE ASSET OF VALUE OF RS.26,55,255/ - (WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE INDEXED FROM FY 1991 - 92) CONSISTS OF VALUE OF ASSESSEES RIGHT IN LEASEHOLD PLOT PLUS VALUE OF UNDIVIDED SHARE IN OLD BUILDINGS. SINCE THE OLD BUNGALOW WAS ALREADY DEMOLISHED DURING THE FY 2007 - 08, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY OLD ASSET IN EXISTENCE FOR MAKING SUCH CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INDEXATION ON COST OF DEMOLISHED PROPERTY AND ALSO ON CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY. THE AO THUS TREATED RAJ RAHUL BUILDING SEPARATELY AS A NEW ASSET, CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH WAS COMPLETED AS PER ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE DATED 05.04.2010. THEREFORE, THE AO CONSIDERED ONLY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET WHILE COMPUTING THE GAINS (WHICH IN THIS CASE HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS) ARISING ON ASSIGNMENT ON FLAT NO. 201, 301 AND 401. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG) ON ASSIGNMENT OF FLAT NO. 201, 301 AND 401 (THREE FLATS OUT OF EI GHT FLATS CONSTRUCTED ) IN RAJ RAHUL BUILDING AT RS.10,72,86,351/ - AGAINST THE LTCG OF RS.9,62,06,6 09/ - AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT LAND CANNO T BE ALIENATED FROM A BUILDING AND IF THERE IS A SALE OF FLAT, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED ONLY FOR THE SUPER - STRUCTURE AND THAT NO VALUE COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE LAND ON WHICH THE SAID SUPER - STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED . TH E AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE PURCHASE OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FY 1991 - 92. THE AO HAS ALSO ALLOWED PROPORTIONATE COST OF BUYING TENANCY OF RS.35,00,000/ - AND SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 6 RS.75,00,000/ - IN THE FY 2004 - 05 AND FY 2005 - 06 RESPECTIVELY . THE LD. CIT(A) THUS OB SERVED THAT THE AO HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE EXISTED A PLOT OF LAND OVER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASE HOLD RIGHTS AND THE SAID RIGHTS WERE FURTHER IMPROVED BY ACQUIRING TENANCY IN FY 2004 - 05 AND FY 2005 - 06, BASED ON WHICH FURTHER CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE IN FYS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.5,47,64,891/ - , RS.2,40,54,014/ - AND RS.10,40,84,158/ - FOR FYS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE FLATS IN QUESTION CAME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE VERY PIECE OF LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FY 1991 - 92. THUS HE HELD THAT AS LAND AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTED THEREON ARE INALIENABLE, THE FINDING OF THE AO IGNORIN G THE COST OF LAND IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS, IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) FINALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM LTCG ON THE SALE OF THREE APARTMENTS. HOWEVER, HE HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO HIM ON THE PROPORTIONATE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND TENANCY OF RS.26,56,255/ - (FY 1991 - 92), RS.35,00,000/ - (FY 2004 - 05) AND RS.75,00,000/ - (FY 2005 - 06) RESPECTIVELY. AS FAR AS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR FY S 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 IS CONCERNE D, THE AO HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED THE SAID BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THAT THE SAME PROPORTION FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE ABOVE FINANCIAL YEARS BE MAINTAINED AND THE ENTIRE GAINS ON THE COST OF THE LAND AND BUILDING BEING IN THE NATURE OF COST OF ACQUISITION/IMPROVEMENT B E TAXED AS LTCG INSTEAD OF STCG. THE LD. CIT(A) THUS HELD (I) IN EFFECT, AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF LTCG OF SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 7 RS.9,62,06,609/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS COMPUTATION OF T OTAL INCOME AFTER INDEXATION, HE SHALL BE ALLOWED THE PROPORTIONATE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND IN FY 1991 - 92 WITH INDEXATION, THE PROPORTIONATE COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR FY 2004 - 05 AND FY 2005 - 06 BUT FOR FY 2008 - 09 AND FY 2009 - 10, HE SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED T HE BENEFIT OF PROPORTIONATE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT INDEXATION AND (II) AS FAR AS FY 2010 - 11 IS CONCERNED, ONLY THE PROPORTIONATE COST HAS BEEN CLAIMED WHICH IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE OLD BUNGALOW WAS ALREADY DEMOLISHED DURING FY 2007 - 08, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY OLD ASSET IN EXISTENCE FOR MAKING SUCH CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT. THE CLAIM OF INDEXATION ON COST OF DEMOLISHED PROPERTY AND ALSO ON CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF NEWLY CONSTRUCTED P ROPERTY IS THUS NOT ALLOWABLE. SINCE THE ASSET WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING TRANSFERRED AFTER DEMOLITION, THE VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES UNDIVIDED SHARE IN OLD BUILDINGS IS NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE AS SET I.E. RAJ RAHUL BUILDING (CONSISTING OF GROUND AND PODIUM WITH EIGHT FLOORS, EACH FLOOR WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL FLAT) IS TO BE TREATED SEPARATELY AS A NEW ASSET, CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH WAS COMPLETED AS PER ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE DATED 05.04.2010. ACCORDING LY, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE NEW ASSET IS HELD AS COMMENCING WITHIN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11. THUS, THE ASSIGNING OF THE THREE FLOORS TO THE ASSIGNEES HAS TO BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET. THUS THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY COMPUTED THE STCG OF RS.10,72,86,351/ - . SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 8 6. PER CONTRA , THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON RIGHT AP PRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT DECISION S . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE GIVEN BELOW. IN CASE OF PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED ON A SITE PURCHASED MUCH EAR LIER, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE PERIOD OF HOLDING THE ASSET I.E., THE PROPERTY, SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY OR FROM THE DATE OF ACQUI SI TION OF THE LAND. IN CIT VS. VIMAL CHAND GOLECHA (1993) 201 ITR 442 (RAJ), THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN 1962 AND BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED THEREON IN THE ACCOUNTING YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1968 - 69, 1969 - 70 AND 1970 - 71. THE BUILDING WAS SOLD IN 1970. IT WAS HELD THAT THE GAINS ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAND WERE ASSESSABLE AS LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE GAINS ATTRIBUTED TO THE BUILDING WERE HOWEVER, SHORT - TERM CAPITAL GAINS. WE REFER HERE TO THE DECISION IN CIT VS. LAKSHMI B. MENON (2003) 264 ITR 76 (KER); CIT VS. C.R. SUBRAMANIAN (2000) 242 ITR 342 (KARN) . AGREEING WITH THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT LAND CAN BE CONSIDERED A SEPARATE CAPITAL ASSET EVEN IF A BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED THEREON. THUS, WHERE THE LAND IS HELD FOR MORE THAN A PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND CAN BE CONSIDERED AS LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING THEREON, BEING A NEW CONSTRUCTION, IS HELD FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED ONE . ONE MAY REFER HERE TO THE DECISION IN CIT VS. DR. D.L. SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 9 RAMACHANDRA RAO (1999) 236 ITR 51 (MAD) AND CIT VS. CITIBANK N.A. (2003) 261 ITR 570 (BOM) . IN THE ABOVE CASES, THE BURDEN WILL BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY HOW MUCH OF THE SALE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE APPORTIONED FOR THE LAND AND HOW MUCH OF THE SALE PROCEEDS PERTAINED TO THE STRUCTURE AS HELD IN CIT VS. ESTATE OF OMPRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA (2002) 254IT R 152 (CAL.) . TO SUM UP, T HE CORRECT POSITION IS THAT THE ASSET CONSISTS OF TWO COMPONENTS: (1) LAND AND (2) BUILDING. WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING HAS TO BE RECKONED SEPARATELY FOR THE LAND AND THE BUILDING. THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED CAN ALSO BE SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS RELATING TO EACH COMPONENT. THE ABOVE ASPECTS , PERTINENT TO THE INSTANT APPEAL , WERE NOT EXAMINED EITHER BY THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATION HEREINBEFORE AND AFTER GI VING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/12/2017. SD/ - SD/ - (D.T. GARASIA) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 12/12/ 20 17 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. SHRI DINESH CHIMANLAL SHAH ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2015 10 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// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI