DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI V. LEO DUCT ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4609/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4207 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Corroborative evidences; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI .. , , , BEFORE, SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4609/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT(OSD)-892), ROOM NO.218, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS LTD. 603,604, 605 SHALIMAR MORYA PARK, OFF. LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400053 ( ! / REVENUE) ( '#$% /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO. AAACL9470G '#$% / ASSESSEE BY SHRI MADHUR AGRAWAL ! / REVENUE BY SHRI AARSI PRASAD & !'(%) / DATE OF HEARING : 09/02/2016 (%) / DATE OF ORDER: 01/03/2016 I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 30/04/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI, WHEREIN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,32,52,416/- MADE U/S 4 0A(2)(B) OF THE ACT WAS DELETED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLEGEDLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND REASONABLENESS OF IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE WITH SUPPORT ING CORROBORATIVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. DR, SHRI AARSHI PRASAD, DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY DEFENDING T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVIT ING OUT ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FURTHER CONTENDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS NUMBER 7 & 10 MENTIONED IN THE PAPER BOOK WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI MADHUR AGRAWAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE CONC LUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT AD-HOC ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY REASON AND FURTHER THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY HIM AND HE HAS NOT DEMONSTRAT ED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE EXCESSIVE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL UPON THE DECISION FROM HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 3 CIT VS ENVIRO CONTROL ASSOCIATED PVT. LTD. (2014) 2 25 TAXMAN 56 (GUJ.) AND CIT VS ASHOK J. PATEL (2014) 225 TAXM AN 79 (GUJ.). 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS AS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, OSP OF INFOTECH INDUSTRIES AN D TURNKEY PROJECTS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES FOR TELECOM GRID, D ECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,06,86,980/- IN ITS E-FILED RETURN ON 30/09/2010, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE A CT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THE REFORE, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GOING TH ROUGH ANNEXURE -3, CLAUSE 18, FORMING PART OF FORM 3CD NO TICED THE REPORT OF THE AUDITORS WITH RESPECT TO FOLLOWING PA RTIES, WHICH INTER-ALIA, COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. NAME OF THE PERSON NATURE OF PAYMENT AMT. (RS.) ALEN ENTERPRISES LABOUR CHARGES 16611765 CANNON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR CHARGES 13616696 FASTEK CONSULTANT LABOUR CHARGES 19604654 TECHNO FAB LABOUR CHARGES 6467819 VOL-TAX FABRICATORS LABOUR CHARGES 16945762 Z.E. SQUARE ENG. & FABRICATOR LABOUR CHARGES 216159 71 HI-CHEM ENG. (INDIA) PVT. LTD LABOUR CHARGES 2830580 HI-TECH VALVES PVT. LTD. LABOUR CHARGES 17363669 LEO DUCT CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. LABOUR CHARGES 13851023 PENTAS ENGINEERING LABOUR CHARGES 14217836 S.M. EHSAN LABOUR CHARGES 16174681 AZAID AZMI LABOUR CHARGES 6961624 TOTAL 166262080 I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 4 2.3. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED, FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT MADE AFORESAID LA BOUR CHARGES, TO THE RELATED PARTIES AS SUB-CONTRACT CHA RGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUB- CONTRACT CHARGES TO THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION A LONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 07/02/2013, EXPLAINED AS UNDER:- THE SUB-CONTRACTS ARE GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES AN D ALSO TO OUTSIDER TO CONTROL EACH SITE SPREAD ALL OVER INDIA PARTICUL ARLY THE WORKERS AND LABOUR JOB WORKS. THE COMPANY CANNOT EMPLOY 100 TO 200 WORKERS. BECAU SE IF THE COMPANY INTENDS TO EMPLOY, THE FIXED OVERHEADS ON A CCOUNT OF WORKERS WILL INCREASE. WE HAVE TO KEEP THEM EMPLOYE D WHETHER THE WORK IS THERE OR NOT. WHILE THE SUB-CONTRACT IS GIVEN FROM SITE TO SITE A S PER THE REQUIREMENT OF WORKERS AND FOR LIMITED PERIOD AND THEREBY REDUC E THE FIXED OVERHEADS BURDEN. FURTHER, THROUGH VARIOUS SUB-CONT RACTORS INCLUDING THE RELATED PARTY CONTRACTOR, IT IS BETTER TO CONTR OL EACH SITE. SOMETIMES 15 TO 25 SITES ARE WORKING AND SOMETIMES 8 TO 10 SITES AND THAT TO FOR A LIMITED PERIOD. THEREFORE, THE COMPAN Y HAS ADOPTED THE POLICY TO GIVE THE MAXIMUM WORK TO SUB-CONTRACTORS TO HAVE A BETTER CONTROL INSTEAD OF EMPLOYING SITE SUPERVISOR EXECUT IVES AT VARIOUS SITES. IT IS BETTER TO GIVE WORK TO SUB-CONTRACTOR WHO IN TURN WILL EXECUTE THE WORK WITH BETTER CONTROL AND IN AN ECON OMIC WAY SINCE DUE TO PERSONAL SUPERVISING THEY GET BETTER OUTPUT FROM WORKERS. WE ARE ENCLOSING A STATEMENT WHICH GIVES SALES TO R ELATED PARTY SUB- CONTRACTORS, THEIR GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT. FRO M THE STATEMENT YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT GROSS PROFIT OR SUB-CONTRACTOR IS HARDLY 10-15% AND NET PROFIT IS 2-3% AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO EXCESS PAYMENT TO RELATED PARTY THE RATE IS BASED ON THE MARKET CONDITION AND ULTIMATELY WORKS OUT CHEAPER FOR THE COMPANY. 2.4. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WER E NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING PA RTIES ARE I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 5 SHAREHOLDERS/SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , INCLUDED IN THE RELATED PARTIES, CLAIMED U/S 40A(2) (B) OF THE ACT. SR. NAME OF THE PARTY RELATION NO 1 MR. MOHD ZAID AZMI SHAREHOLDER 2 MR. S.M. EHSAN SHAREHOLDER 3 LEO DUCT CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. SISTER CONCERN 4 HI CHEM ENGINEERING (1) PVT. LTD. SISTER CONCERN 2.5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE, WITH DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENTS MADE TO SO CALLED RELATED PARTIES IS NOT EXCESSIVE WHEN COMPARE TO TH E MARKET CONDITIONS OF THE SIMILAR WORK, THUS, HE MADE ADDIT ION U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 2.6. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ADDITION IN APPEAL B EFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHERE IN, THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY EXAMINED AND FINALLY THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. THE REVENUE IS AG GRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.7. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, THE ISSUE ARISES WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE PAID EXCESS AMOUNTS TO THE RELATED SUB-CON TRACTORS I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 6 IN COMPARISON TO OTHER SUB-CONTRACT, EMPLOYED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR DOING ITS DAY TO DAY WORK AT VARIOUS S ITES. IT IS NOTED THAT VARIOUS INVOICES RAISED AGAINST SUCH SUB - CONTRACTORS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER EVEN DID NOT TOOK PAIN TO GO THROUGH SUCH INVOICES, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE RATES AT WHICH CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO THE RELATED PARTIES AND ALSO TO THE NON-RELATED PARTIES ARE EXACTLY SAM E AND RATHER ON THE CONTRARY, THERE WERE INSTANCES, WHERE LOW RATES WERE GIVEN TO THE RELATED PARTIES IN COMPARISON TO NON-RELATED PARTIES. EVEN BEFORE US, NO SUCH INSTANCE WAS BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE ARE IN AGR EEMENT WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE GENUINELY MADE FOR THE LEGITIMATE NEE DS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AT THE SAME TIME THESE WERE BENEFICIAL AND ECONOMICAL TO THE ASSESSEE TO SAFEGU ARD ITS BUSINESS INTEREST. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SUB-CO NTRACTORS WERE HAVING EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION LIKE B.E., CI VIL ENGINEERING, MBA, B.COM AND M.COM, ETC. HAVING EXPE RIENCE OF EXECUTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS/INDUSTRY EA CH RANGING FROM 15 TO 13 YEARS. IN PARA 2.3.6, THERE IS CATEGO RICAL UNCONTROVERTED FINDING BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD, S AMPLE WORK ORDER AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE I N TERMS I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 7 AND CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE WORK ORDERS TO THE RELAT ED PARTIES AND NOT RELATED SUB-CONTRACTOR, MEANING THEREBY, TH ERE WERE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR BOTH. THE ASSESSE E DULY SUBMITTED THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS OF THE SUB-CONTRAC TORS, CONFIRMATION LETTERS, PAN, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF TH E SENIOR PERSON OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND FURTHER THE PAYMEN T MADE BY THE CONTRACTORS ARE DULY REFLECTED BY THEM IN TH EIR RETURN OF INCOME. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONTAINED IN P ARA 2.3.7 AND FURTHER THE FACTUM OF SUBMISSIONS OF INFO RMATION IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. 2.8. SO FAR AS, NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF WORK EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN PARA 2.3.8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT ENTIRE DETAILS, DETAILS OF BILL RAISE, WORK EXECUTED WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED AS UND ER:- THE NOTE ON THE NECESSITY OF TAKING THE SERVICES OF SUB CONTRACTOR WHETHER RELATED OR NOT RELATED. JUSTIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT BY T HE EDUCATED, FAMILY MEMBER WHO HAS STAKE IN THE GOODWILL OF THE COMPANY AS AGAINST NON RELATED SUBCONTRACTORS FINANCIAL COMFORT WITH RELATED PARTIES SUB CONTRACT ORS AS AGAINST NON RELATED SUB CONTRACTORS. IN CASE OF RELATED PARTIES SUB CONTRACTORS THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF EMPLOYING SITE SUPERVISOR THE SENIOR PERSON OF THE RELATED CONTRACTOR TAKE CARE OF THIS WORK AND T HEREFORE COST SAVINGS IN CASE OF RELATED PARTIES SUB CONTRACTORS. THE MARGIN OF RELATED PARTIES IS 10-15% GROSS MARGI N AND 2-3% NET MARGIN AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO EXCESS PAYMENT TO RELATED PARTIES IN COMPARE TO THE COST INCURRED IN EXECUTION OF WORK B Y THEM. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES AND N ON RELATED PARTY I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 8 WERE SAME. THE APPELLANT TAKES LABOUR CONTRACT AND PASS ON THE EXECUTION TO SUB CONTRACTORS AFTER RETAINING AROUND 20% OF THE CONTRACT PRICE. THIS AROUND 20% MARGIN IS TO COVER THE COST OF TECHNICAL AND SKILL PROVIDING SUPERVISION, COST OF STORES LIKE HAND GLOWS, TOOLS ETC AND PROVIDING MACHINES AND TO COVE R OVERHEADS AND THEIR MARGIN AND COST OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GIVEN A CHART OF RELATED PARTIES CONTRACTORS GIVING DETAILS OF BILL AMOUNT. PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR. SITE PLACE WHERE THEY HAVE TO GIVE SERVICES. THE CUSTOMERS FOR WHOSE WORKS WE WERE DOING THE WOR K. NATURE OF WORK. TOTAL WAGES PAID BY THEM IN RESPECT OF THEIR SITE. THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM ALL RELATED PARTIES, P AN NO. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. NO. OF WORKERS EMPL OYED BY THEM ON SITE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED 20% OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR PAYMENT MERELY ON PRESUMP TION, DOUBT AND SURMISES, IGNORING THE MARGIN IN THE RELA TED FIELD AND THE NECESSARY DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EVE N IGNORING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET OF THOSE RELATED PARTIES WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VE RIFICATION. 2.9. AS PER SECTION 40A(2)(B), THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER IS TO SCRUTINIZED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RELATED PAR TIES. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOW HERE DEMONSTRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PAYME NTS MADE TO THE RELATED PARTIES ARE EXCESSIVE. IT IS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS TO FORM A OPINION ON THE BASIS OF E VIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE GENERAL LAW, TRANS ACTIONS EVEN WITH THE RELATIVES AND/OR ASSOCIATE CONCERNS C ANNOT BE DISCARDED, THUS, THE ONUS IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO P ROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE SHAM OR THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS WERE EITHER ACTUALLY NOT PAID OR THE TRANSACT ION IS NOT I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 9 BONA-FIDE. OUR VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN MARGHABHAI KISHABHAI PATEL & COMPANY VS CIT 108 ITR 54 (GUJ.) RELYING UPON 28 ITR 952 (MAD.), CIT VS KESHA VLAL CHANDULAL 59 ITR 120 (GUJ.) AND DAS & COMPANY VS CI T 45 ITR 369 (PAT.). THE SCOPE OF SECTION 40A(2) IS TO D ISALLOW ONLY UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN TCV ENGINEERING LTD. VS ACIT (2006) 284 ITR 470 (MAD.) SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. 2.10. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS ASHOK J. PATEL (2014) 225 TAXMAN 79 (GUJ.) ON THE ISSUE OF EXCESSI VE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER QUOTED FAIR MARKET CO MPETITIVE RATES NOR BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCHA RGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM, THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN CIT VS ENVIRO CONTROL ASSOCIATED (P.)LTD. (2014) 225 TAXMA N 56 (GUJ.). IN THAT CASE, ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS TO SIS TER CONCERN FOR SUPPLY OF LABOURS FOR OPERATING AND MAI NTENANCE WORK AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED THE 10% OF THE PAYMENTS ON THE GROUND TH AT THE SISTER CONCERN WAS RUN BY WIFE OF THE DIRECTOR OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS NO I.T.A NO.4609/MUM2014 M/S LEO DUCT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 10 FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PAYMENTS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. IDENTICAL ARE THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. THUS, CONSIDERING THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS, UNCONTROVERTED FINDING CONTAINED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), RESUL TING INTO DISMISSAL OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FINALLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 09/02/2016. SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; + DATED : 01/03/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 11 & 2% ( , ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 11 & 2% / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 4!5/%' , 1, ),'6 , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7#8' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 04%/% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI