ASST CIT 17(1), MUMBAI V. BHUPESH SEVANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 4606/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4834 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABI RAMA KARTIKIYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P P JAYARAMAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD , JM ITA NO. 4606 /MUM/ 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) ASST. CIT - 17(1), ROOM NO. 117, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI - 400 020 VS. SHRI BHUPESH SEVANTILLAL SHAH (PROP. M/S. KHUSHBU IMPEX) 410, ANAND BLDG., 82/4, KAZI SAYED STREET, MASJID BUNDER, MUMBAI - 400 003 PAN/GIR NO. AFSPM 6894 H ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABI RAMA KARTIKIYAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. P. JAYARAMAN DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.02 .2019 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 28, MUMBAI (LD.CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 13.04.2016 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2011 - 12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: L. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD/.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN NR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT - I) DUE TO THE NON - COOPERTIVE AND RECALCITRANT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144(L)(B) OF THE ACT. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY MERELY RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CARRYING OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS III) THE LD. CIT ( A) OUGHT TO HAVE REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES AND TO CARRY OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IV) THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULES. 1962. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD/.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TODELETE THE ADDITION OFRS. 31,80,304/ - U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT 2 ITA NO. 4606/MUM/2016 I) DUE TO THE NON - COPOPERATIVE AND RECALCITRANT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144(1 )(B) OF THE ACT. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY MERELY RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CARRYING OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S III) THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES AND TO CARRY OUT FURTHER IN VESTIGATIONS TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ASSESSEE 'S CLAIM. IV) ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE LD CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULES 1962. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE L D/.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TODELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,23,005/ - / - U/S 32 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT I) DUE TO THE NON - COOPERATIVE AND RECALCITRANT ATTITUDE O F THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144(1 )(B) OF THE ACT. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY MERELY RELYING UPON THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CARRYING OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . III) THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCES AND TO CARRY OUT FURTHER IUNVESTIGATIONS TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ASSESSEE 'S CLAIM. IV) ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE LD CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULES 1962 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO SHOULD BE RESTORED AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A) S HOULD BE SET ASIDE.' 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT, EXPORT AND ALSO ACTS AS COMMISSION AGENT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE NET PROFIT DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR WAS 7.52% IN COMPARISON TO THE CURRENT YEAR NP @ 4.64% AND THE FALL IN PROFIT @ 2.88% WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE NET PROFIT OF RS.71 , 86 , 594 / - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCLUSIVE OF OTHER INDIRECT INCOMES LIKE EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE GAIN, INTEREST ON DELAYED BILLS, INTEREST ON FD R, SPECIAL ADDITIONAL DUTY REFUND AND SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LEASE RENTAL TOTALING TO RS.3 , 998 , 586 / - . ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ADDITION MADE OUT OF EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED IN APPEAL. FURTHER THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED BIFURCATION OF EXPENSES THROUGH BANK AND CASH FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE QUITE SUBSTANTIAL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED OR EXPLAINED 3 ITA NO. 4606/MUM/2016 THE EXPENSES WITH REFERE NCE TO EXACT BENEFITS/SERVICES AVAILED BY HIM, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES U/S.37(L) OF THE ACT IN ITS ENTIRETY. HENCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE PILFERAGE THE AO MADE AN AD HOC ADDI TION OF RS. 10,00,000 / - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. FURTHER, T HE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.30 , 61 , 438 / - TOWARDS DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE PREMISES AS THE SAME IS LET OUT ON REN T TO LIC WHILE DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED ON ADDITION ON BUILDING DURING THE YEAR. THUS IT WAS SEEN THAT ON THE OPENING WDV OF THE OFFICE PREMISES OF RS.34 , 96 , 334 / - , NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED WHEREAS THE ADDITION SHOWN IS RS.3 , 28 , 33 , 736 / - ON WHICH DEPRECIAT ION OF RS.29 , 23 , 005 / - IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID HUGE ADDITION AND ALSO DETAILS TO PROVE THAT THE SAME WAS USED FOR HIS BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION OF RS.29 , 23 , 005 / - FOR WANT OF COMPLETE AND PROPER DETAILS. 5. FURTHER O N PERUSAL OF THE P & L A/C. IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED HUGE LOAN LIABILITY TO BANK UNDER VARIOUS HEADS TOTALING TO RS.6 , 28 , 47 , 358 / - AND BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST OF RS.60 , 87 , 449 / - W AS ALSO INCURRED. THE AO OPINED THAT IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE DIFFERENT LOANS ARE TAKEN FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES AND THAT NO INTEREST DEBITED REQUIRES TO BE CAPITALIZED AS PER THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 36(L)(III), BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY THE AO WORKED OUT THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AT RS.31 , 80 , 304 / - BEING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT AND AD DED BACK THE SAME TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO. 4606/MUM/2016 6. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: GROUND 1: HIS IS AGAINST TH E ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING RS. 10,00,000 TOW ARDS FALL IN NP. THE AO HAS HELD SO AFTER ANALYZING THE NP RATION OF THE CURRENT YEAR WITH THE EARLIER YEARS. THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE FALL IN NP IS ON ACCOUNT OF HALVING OF OTHER INCOME INCLUDED IN THE P&L A/C. I FIND FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF TH E APPELLANT THAT THE GP RATIO HAS IN FACT INCREASED FROM 8.96% TO 10.46%. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE OTHER INCOME HAS REDUCED F ROM RS 63.46 LAKHS TO RS 34.98 LAKHS. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ALSO MADE BEFORE THE AO, HAS NOT BEEN NEGATED BY THE AO AND NO SPECIFIC FAULT IN EXPENSES HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE HAS ANY LEGS TO STAND ON AS NO SPECIFIC FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE AO. I THEREFORE DELETE THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS 10,00,000 MADE BY THE AO ON THIS COUNT. GROUND 1 IS ALLOWED. 5.2 GROUND 2: THIS IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING INTEREST OF RS . 31,80,304 U/S 36(L)(III). THE AO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS A LOAN LIABILITY OF RS 6.2 8 CR AND AN INTEREST COST OF RS. 60,87,449. THE AO CALLED F OR DETAILS, PARTS OF WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE HIM. THE AO THEN HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO INTEREST TO BE CAPITALIZED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SEC 36(L)(III). HE THEREFORE WORKED OUT THE PRO RATE INTEREST AND DISALLOWED RS . 31,80,304. BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT FILED FULL DETAILS OF LOANS AVAILED AND THE INTEREST PAID ON THE SAME. FROM THE SAME, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE NO LOANS AVAILED FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THE PROVISO TO SEC 36(L)(III) APP LIES ONLY IN CASE THERE IS A LOAN AVAILED FOR EXPANDING THE BUSINESS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH EXPAN SION. I AM THEREFORE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THERE IS NO CAUSE TO DISALLOW ANY INTEREST AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,80,304 IS DELETED. 5.3 GROUND3: THIS IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS 29.23 LAKHS. THE AO HA S STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS . 29,23,005 CLAIMED ON ADDITION TO OFFICE PREMISES AND THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE SAME. IN HIS SUBMISSIONS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT STATES THAT HE HAS NOT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON OFFICE PREMISES LET OUT AS THE INCOME FROM THE SAME IS RETURNED AS HOUSE PROPERTY. THE CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION IS TOWARDS A GODOWN IN VALSAD WHICH IS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR AND SHOWN AS ADDITION TO OFFICE PREMISES. THE SAME IS APPARENT FROM THE FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE TO THE BALANCE SHEET. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CLEAR FACTS, ONCE AGAIN, I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 29,23,005 IS THEREFORE DELETED AS IT HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. GROUND 3 IS ALLOWED. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. APROPOS THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.10 LACS: WE NOTE THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. BY NOTING THAT THERE IS SOME FALL IN THE NET PROFIT AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT SOME ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE LAST YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES WHIC H HAVE NOT BEEN CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL 5 ITA NO. 4606/MUM/2016 INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES. THE A.O. ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED OR EXPLAINED THE EXPENDITURE WITH REFERENCE TO EXACT BENEFIT/SERVICE AVAILED BY HIM. HENCE, IN ORDER TO PRO TECT THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE PILFERAGE, THE A.O. HAS MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS WHATSOEVER. NO SHORTCOMING OR DEFECT IN THE VOUCHERS IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN PRODUCED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT IS INCREASED AS COMPARED TO T HE PRECEDING YEAR. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO RULE THAT RATE OF PROFIT SHOULD FOLLOW UN IFORM MATHEMATICAL PRECISION . SINCE THE A.O. HAS NOT RECORD ED ANY COGENT REASONING FOR THIS DISALLOWANCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). APROPOS THE ISS UE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION: 9. ON THIS ISSUE, THE A.O. HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE PREMISES WAS NOT SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AS IT WAS PUT ON R ENT TO LIC. FOR THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEP RECIATION. SINCE NO INFORMATION O F DETAILS WERE GIVEN TO THE A.O., THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION. 10. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE, THE LD. C IT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE ITSELF THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS TOWARDS A GODOWN IN VALSAD WHICH IS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR AND SHOWN AS ADDITION TO OFFICE PREMISES. WE FIND THAT ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT BEFORE THE A .O . WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LD. C IT(A) THAT SHOWING THE ADDITION OF GODOWN AS ADDITION TO OFFICE PREMISES IN THE DEPRECIATION 6 ITA NO. 4606/MUM/2016 SCHEDULE, AMOUNTS TO SUBMISSION OF SUFFICIENT DETAILS TO THE A.O. SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE LD. C IT(A) HAS INFORMATION WHICH WERE CLEA RLY NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O., WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. APROPOS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST: 11. ON THIS ISSUE, THE A.O. HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A HUGE LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.6 , 28 , 47 , 388/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF DIFFERENT LOANS TAKEN AND THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES. THE A.O. OPINED THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS EXAMINATION AS IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF ADDITION AS CERTAIN INTEREST MIGHT HAVE REQUIRED CAPITALIZATION AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.31,80,304/ - BEING ATTRIBUTABLE TO AD DITIONAL CAPITAL ASSET AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III). 12. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED FULL DETAILS OF THE LOAN AVAILED AND THE INTEREST PAID F OR THE SAME. HE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO LOAN AVAILABLE FOR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS. H ENCE, THE LD. C IT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH EXPANSION, THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE A.O. WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS CATEGORICAL OBSERVATION BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS OF THE LOANS AVAILED. HOWEVER, THE LD. C IT HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT HE HAD GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS AND HE HAS OBSERVED THAT NO LOAN WAS AVAILED FOR EX PAN SION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A INASMUCH AS THE LD. C IT(A) HAS NOT REM ANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. W E FIND THAT A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE 7 ITA NO. 4606/MUM/2016 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). NO DETAILS WHATSOEVER HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THOSE DET AILS WERE ALREADY GIVEN TO THE A .O. AND HE HAS IGNORED THE SAME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 13. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD ) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 5 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 ROSHANI , SR. PS 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 FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI