ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI V. NIYATI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4580/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3772 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JHAVERI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 37(1); 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM & HONBLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, A M ./ I.T.A. NO . 4580 /MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) A CIT 5(2)(1), R. NO. 571, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 401, PARKEH MARKET, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI - 400 004 ./ ./ PAN NO. AA CCN1022E ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARVIND KUMAR , DR / RESPONDENTBY : SHR I B. V. JHAVERI , AR / DATE OF HEARING : 10 .01 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2019 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10, MUMBAI, DATED 17 .03.17 FOR AY 2007 - 08 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - 2 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD 1. 'ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID CIT( A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SUPERFICIALLY. 2. ' ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID CJT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE IMPOUNDED PAPERS RE VELS THAT OUT OF RS 2.20 CR GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN CHEQUE TO DILKUSH & CO RS 4,25,396/ - WAS RETURNED BACK BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A SALE RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR AND ALSO AFTER REDUCING COMMISSION OF RS 5,39,365/ - AT THE RATE OF 2.5% ON RS 2.15 CORES, TH E BALANCE OF RS 2.10 CORE WAS REFUNDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. ' 3. ' ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE DUBIOUS TRANSACTION ON MACX THROUGH THE BROKER M/S DILKUSH & CO.' 1. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY.' 3 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD 2 . AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORTS AND INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. IT FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2007 - 08 ON 30/10/2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.36,09,472/ - . THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 27/11/2009 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.37,09,470/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION FROM DDIT( LNV.), SURAT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN DUBIOUS TRANSACTION WITH SHARE BROKERS M/S. DILKHUSH & CO. THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 18/03/2014 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ON 16/02/2015 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,57,09,470/ - BY MAKING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES PARTLY AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US . 4 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD GROUND NO. 1 & 2 5 . THE SE GROUND S RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE INTER CONNECTED AND INTER RELATED AND RELATES TO CHAL LENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO U/S 37(1) AND U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, WHILE RELYING UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SUPERFICIALLY . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE IMPOUNDED PAPERS REVELS THAT OUT OF RS 2.20 CR ORE GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN CHEQUE TO DILKUSH & CO RS 4,25,396 / - WAS RETURNED BACK BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS NOTHING 5 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD BUT A SALE RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR AND ALSO AFTER REDUCING COMMISSION OF RS 5,39,365/ - AT THE RATE OF 2.5% ON RS 2.15 CORES, THE BALANCE OF RS 2.10 CORE WAS REFUNDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH . 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BY HIM BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS PCIT VRS. TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA (GUJ HC) TA NO. 691 OF 2017, PCIT VRS. TEJUA ROHITKUMAR (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 325 (SC) AND SURESH VIRJI THAKKAR VRS. DCIT (ITA NO. 109/MUM 2016). 9. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN PARA NO. 5.2 TO 5.2.3 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID. AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY AO AND THE ID.AR. IT IS S EEN THAT PRIMARILY THE ADDITIONS CENTRE AROUND THE 2 LOOSE SHEETS NUMBERED PAGE NO. 17 & 18 OF ANNEXURE - 6 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD A1 IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION. PAGE - 17 IS MANUALLY RETURN AND PAGE - 18 IS TYPED ONE OF THE SAME CONTENTS OF PAGE - 17. THE PROTOTYPE O F PAGE - 18 WHICH IS THE REPRODUCTION OF PAGE - 17 LOOKS AS UNDER - TOTAL GIVEN 275 CASH BACK(GG ) 246.5 28.5 2,850,000 BILL CHQ. REN BY CHQ AS PER LEDGER' NIYATI 21574603.54 22000000 425396.46 AMELIA 4985916.32 5500000 514083.68 939,480 1,910,520 LESS: COMM@ 2.5% 21574603.54 2.5 539365 4985916.32 2.5 124648 6664,013 1,246,507 5.2.1 IT APPEARS THAT M/S DILKHUSH & CO, THE COMMODITY BROKER, HAD SIMILAR DEAL LIKE THAT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH ANOTHER CONCERN CALLED M/S AMELIA. THEREFORE, SIMILAR NOTING IS MADE ON THE SAME LOOSE SHEETS. SINCE THERE ARE NO DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTICE ON THE LOOSE SHEETS AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE PROTOTYPE REPRODUCTION OF PAGE 18 OF THAT LOOSE SHEET, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES ARRIVED AT BY THE SURVEY PARTY AND THE AO KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT S OF THE CASE HOLISTICALLY. IT APPEARS THAT THE CONCEPT OF RECEIVING CASH BACK BY THE APPELLANT IS A PURE GUESSWORK OF THE SURVEY PARTY AND 7 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD THE AO. THE ID.AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH CASH RECEIVED FROM THE TRANSACTION FROM THE BROKER FROM THE C HEQUE GIVEN FOR RS.2.20 CR. THE SURVEY TEAM HAS MADE ALL - OUT EFFORTS TO ASCERTAIN THE NOTING OF 'CASH BACK' NOTED ON PAGE - 17 & 18 BY RECORDING STATEMENTS FROM THE EMPLOYEES OF M/S. M. SURESH JEWELLERY PVT.LTD., A GROUP CONCERN AND ALSO THE PARTNER OF DILKH USH & CO AND RECEIVED A NEGATIVE REPLY. THEREFORE, THE STAND OF SURVEY PARTY AND THE AO AR E NOT ACCEPTABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND BEFORE ME IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN RS. 2.20 CRORES TO DILKHUSH & C O AND AFTER TRADE DILKHUSH & CO HAS ACCOUNTED BACK THE BALANCE OF RS. 4, 15, 396 BY YEAR END(ACTUALLY GIVEN ON 12/6/2007 FALLING IN SUBSEQUENT A.Y) AFTER INCURRING LOSS OF RS. 2.15 CRORES IN THE COMMODITY BROKING. I'M CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVI DENCES FILED BEFORE ME A SET OF WHICH WERE ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE LOSS CLAIMED OF RS.2.15 CR. IS ALLOWABLE AND THE ADDITION OF RS.2.10 CR. IS DELETED. 5.2.1. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.4,25,396/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RETURNED BACK BY WAY OF CHEQUE FROM DILKHUSH & CO TOWARDS SALE PROCEEDS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT, I HOLD THAT, THIS ADDITION IS ALSO NOT PROPER SINCE THIS AMOUNT IS PART OF RS. 2.20 8 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD CRORES WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF TO DILKHUSH & CO TOWARDS COMMODITY TRADE. WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2.20 CRORES ON VARIOUS DATES TO DILKHUSH & CO AND EVIDENCES LIKE CONTRACT NOTES AND RELEVANT BILLS SHOW THAT TRADE OF COMMODITY BY DILKHUSH & CO ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS CARRIED OUT, THE BALANCE AMOUNT RETURNED AFTER RETAINING TRADE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT IS ONLY RETURNING BACK OF THE BALANCE OUR AMOUNT AFTER TRADE FROM THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS.2.20 CR. GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR THAT PURPO SE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS DELETED. 5.2.2. WITH REGARD TO COMMISSION THE ID.AR HAS SUBMITTED HIS LINE OF ARGUMENT IN HIS LETTER DATED 15/3/2015 AS UNDER - '4. PLEASE REFER TO PAGE NUMBER 18 OF THE SEIZED PEPPERS (GIVEN AT PAGES 54 OF THE PR OPER BOOK SUBMITTED TO YOUR HONOUR). THE COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 2.5% MENTIONED IN THE SAID PEPPERS BUTTONS TO VARIOUS EXPENSES CHARGED BY THE BROKER DILKHUSH & CO IN ITS BILLS. PLEASE REFER TO THE VARIOUS BILLS ALSO ATTACHED AT PAGE 58 TO 212. IN THE SA ID BILLS THE SAID BROKER HAS CHARGED VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE BROKERAGE, SERVICE TAX ON BROKERAGE, TRANSACTION FEES, STAMP DUTY ETC. ALL 9 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD THESE EXPENSES WORKED OUT TO APPROXIMATELY 2.60% OF THE TOTAL LOSS INCURRED. AS THE MANAGEMENT WERE WANTING TO MEET THE BR OKER AND REQUEST HIM TO REDUCE ITS CHARGES, ALL THE EXPENSES COLLECTIVELY WERE SHOWN AS COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 2.5% FOR THE MANAGEMENT TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE BROKER FOR REDUCTION OF THE CHARGES SO THAT THE LOSS FOR THE YEAR CAN BE REDUCED.' I' M CONVINCED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID.AR. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE BOOKS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEBITED THIS COMMISSION IN ITS BOOKS. IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED IF NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO LEARNT THAT THE BROKER HAS WORKED OUT THE TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 2.15 CRORES WHICH PROBABLY INCLUDES THE RELEVANT COMMISSION CHARGES WHICH WORKS OUT TO ABOUT 2.5%. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE ADDITION OF RS. 5, 39, 365 IS DIRECTED T O BE WITHDRAWN. 5.2.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 2.20 CRORES MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 10 AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HEARING THE PARTIES AT LENGTH, WE FIND AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF 10 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/S 133A OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF SHAHLON GROUP OF CASES IN WHICH ONE SUB - GROUP VIZ M. SURESH GROUP WAS ALSO COVERED IN ITS SEEPZ PREMISES BY DDIT (INV) UNIT - 3, SURAT, THEREFORE THE SURVEY PARTY HAD NOTICED THAT DURING THE FY 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO AY 2007 - 08, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN CHEQUE OF RS. 2.20 CRORE S TO DILSUKH & CO. COMMODITY BROKER FOR PURCHASE OF FUTURE COMMODITIES ON MCX. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GOT BACK THE SALES RECEIPT OF RS. 4,25,2396/ - FROM THE BROKER IN CHEQUE FORM AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,15,74,603/ - WAS BOOKED AS LOSS SUFFERED IN COMMODITY TRADE. 11. AS PER THE AO, THE SURVEY PARTY HAD NOTICED TWO LOOSE SHEETS IN THE PREMISES OF SURESH GROUP AS PER WHICH THE SURVEY PARTY HAD INFERRED THAT OUT OF RS. 2.20 CRORES GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN CHEQUE TO DILKHUSH & CO., RS. 4,25,396/ - WAS RETURNED BACK BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A SALE RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR AND ALSO AFTER REDUCING COMMISSION OF RS. 5,39,365/ - AT THE RATE OF 2.5% ON RS. 2.15 CRORES., THE BALANCE OF RS. 2.10 CRORES REFUNDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. BASED ON SUCH FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY 11 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD PARTY, THE AO HAD ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE TRANSACTIONS AS A CALCULATED ONE AND DISBELIEVED THE LOSS OF RS. 2.15 CRORES BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDIT BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED BACK CASH FROM DILKHUSH AND CO. OF RS. 2.10 CRORES AND RS. 4,25,396/ - AS ASSESSEE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE COMMODITY TRADE AND ADDED RS. 5,39,365/ - U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF FICITIOUS COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. AFTER APPRECIATING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AT PARA NO. 5.2, PAGE 18 IS THE TYPE COPY OF THE CONTENTS IN PAGE 17 WHICH WAS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN DETAIL. SINCE M/S DILKHUSH & CO, THE COMMODITY BROKER, HAD SIMILAR DEAL LIKE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH ANOTHER CONCERN CALLED M/S AMEL IA. THEREFORE, SIMILAR NOTING WAS ALSO FOUND MADE ON THE SAME LOOSE SHEETS. S INCE NO DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF T HE NOTICE ON THE LOOSE SHEETS WAS NOTICED, THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY HELD THAT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES ARRIVED AT BY THE SURVEY PARTY AND THE AO KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT S OF THE CASE. 12 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT T HE CONCEPT OF RECE IVING CASH BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PURE GUESSWORK OF THE SURVEY PARTY AND THE AO. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY DENIED OF RECEIVING CASH FROM THE TRANSACTION FROM THE BROKER FROM THE CHEQUE GIVEN FOR RS.2.20 CR. EVEN FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN RS. 2.20 CRORES TO DILKHUSH & CO AND AFTER TRADE DILKHUSH & CO HAS ACCOUNTED BACK THE BALANCE OF RS. 4, 15, 396 BY YEAR END AFTER INCURRING LOSS OF RS. 2.15 CRORES IN THE COMMODITY BROKING. AS FAR AS ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RETURNED BACK FROM DILKHUSH & CO IS CONCERNED, IN THIS RESPECT, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT RS. 2.20 CRORES ITSELF WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO DILKHU SH & CO TOWARDS COMMODITY TRADE, WHICH IS SUP PORTED BY EVIDENCE SUCH AS CONTRACT NOTES AND RELEVANT BILLS , ETC. SHOW THAT TRADING OF COMMODITY WAS CARRIED OUT, THEREFORE THE BALANCE AMOUNT RETURNED AFTER RETAINING TRADE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITIONS. AS REGARDS COMMISSION, WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEBITED THIS COMMISSION IN ITS BOOKS, THEREFORE ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT CLAIMED, CANNOT BE 13 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD DISALLOWED. HENCE, WE ALSO UPHOLD THE REASONING AND ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT. 13. MOREOVER, N O NEW FACTS OR CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD CIT (A) . THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . 14 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH FEB , 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 08 . 02 .201 9 SR.PS . DHANANJAY 14 I.T.A. NO. 4580 / MUM/201 7 M/S NIYATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI