FUTURE CORPORATE RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIMPLETON INVESTRADE PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI V. DY. CIT (OSD) -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4658/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9813 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKU HARIA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.4658/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) FUTURE CORPORATE RESOURCES LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIMPLETON INVESTRADE P LTD), GROUND FLOOR, KNOWLEDGE HOUSE, OFF JOGESHWARI VIKHROLI LINK ROAD, SHYAM NAGAR, JOGESHWARI (E), MUMBAI-60 PAN : AAJCS3979E VS D Y .CIT (OSD)-8(1), MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI VIPUL JOSHI & DINKU HARIA RESPONDENT BY MS POOJA SWAROOP DATE OF HEARING 15 -06-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-07-2017 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-16, MUMBAI DATED 20-05-2015 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 29-09-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,76,58,135. THE CASE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY AND 2 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 ACCORDINGLY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED . IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTEN DED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS, AS CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING INVEST MENTS WORTH RS.2,465.47 LAKHS AND RS.390536.42 LAKHS AT THE BEGINNING OF TH E YEAR AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR, RESPECTIVELY, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR W AS NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE OUGHT TO HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INC OME WHICH DOES NOT OR WAS NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME AS REQUIRED U/S 14 A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDI TURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HIS IN VESTMENT AND TO SHOWCAUSE AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHOULD NOT BE MADE I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE N OTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS S UBSIDIARY COMPANIES AS A PROMOTER AND ALSO AS PART OF ITS BUSINESS STRATEGIE S BUT NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME FROM SUCH SHARES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2011-12 IT HAS CLAIME D CERTAIN SHARES BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER OF THE BOMBAY HI GH COURT FOR WHICH IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, NO EXP ENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE EXPLANATION OF THE 3 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 ASSESSEE AND ALSO ON ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OBSERVED THAT THE COMPANY CANNOT EARN DIVIDEND WITHOUT INCUR RING EXPENDITURE, WHEN ITS EXISTENCE AND MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT DECISIO NS ARE VERY COMPLEX IN NATURE, WHICH REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL MARKET RESEARCH, DAY-TO-DAY ANALYSIS OF MARKET TRENDS AND DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO ACQUISIT ION, RETENTIONS AND SALE OF SHARES AT THE MOST APPROPRIATE TIME FOR WHICH THE A SSESSEE NEED TO DEPLOY AND EMPLOY CERTAIN RESOURCES BY INCURRING EXPENDITU RE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLOWED 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF I T RULES, 1962. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS INV ESTED IN VARIOUS SUBSIDIARIES AND ASSOCIATE COMPANIES AS PART OF ITS BUSINESS STR ATEGY TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS OF GROUP COMPANIES, BUT NOT TO EARN DIVIDE ND INCOME FROM SAID INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE INTENTION WAS NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME AND IN FACT MOST OF THE COMPAN IES HAVE NOT DECLARED DIVIDEND SINCE THEIR INCEPTION, WHICH IS EVIDENT FR OM THE FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR IT HAD EARNED MEAGER AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND OF RS. 24,138 AS AGAINST WHICH, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF RS.3,36,28,000 BY I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF 4 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF IT RULES, 1962. THE ASSES SEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS ACQUIRED CERTAIN INVESTMENTS BY WAY OF AMALGAMA TION IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOR WHICH IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS INCORRE CT IN DISALLOWING HUGE AMOUNT OF PRESUMPTIVE EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING RULE 8D(2)(III). 4. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANY E XPENDITRE U/S 14A ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND INDIRECT EXPENSES WHI LE CALCULATING TOTAL INCOME IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT PROVE THAT THERE IS NO EXPENSE INCURRED WHILE MAINTAINING HUGE INVESTMENTS . THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED TAX FREE DIVIDEND WHICH, IT HAS CLAIMED AS E XEMPT INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE THAT IF THERE IS ANY INCOME IN P&L ACCOUNT AND THERE ARE ANY ASSETS IN BALANCE-SHEET OF ANY CO NCERN, THERE MUST BE SOME INCIDENTAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EXPENSES TO EARN SUCH INCOME OR ASSET. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT NON E OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME AND MAKING THE INVE STMENT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E AO TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. AG GRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN 5 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF IT RULES, 1962 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES CA SE WAS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE, NO DISALLOWAN CE WAS CALLED FOR UNDER THIS SECTION. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN SHA RES ARE HELD BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION, IN PURSUANCE OF A COURT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE NEED NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE TO ACQUIRE SUCH SHARES, AS SUCH, NEED N OT DISALLOW ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A MEAGER DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.24,138 WHEREA S THE AO HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,36,286 WHICH IS MORE THAN THE AMO UNT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCE PROVIDED U/S 14A CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE EXEMPT INCOME, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS COMPL ETELY ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF IT RULES, 19 62. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LD.AR RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISION S:- 1.JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT LTD VS CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (DEL) 2. PRINCIPAL CIT VS EMPIRE PACKAGE PVT LTD (ITA NO.415 OF 2015, ORDER DT 12.01.2016 (P&H) 3. DCM LTD VS DCIT (ITA NO.4467/DEL/12, ORD DATED 01.09.2015 4. GREAVES LEASING & FINANCE LTD VS ITO 2012) 54 S OT 22 (MUM) 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR STRONGLY SUPPORTING TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF IT RULES, 1962 ARE 6 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 MANDATORY IN NATURE FROM AY 2008-09 ONWARDS AND THE AO IS BOUND TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PRESCRIBED FORMULA PROVIDED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE D ISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT BY THE AO AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIA LS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME . THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(3 4) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPEND ITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED, AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF IT RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IT DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME AS THE DIVIDEND I NCOME IS EARNED FROM SHARES HELD IN SUBSIDIARY AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES AS A PROMOTER. THE SHARES WERE ACQUIRED, AND MADE INVESTMENTS SOLELY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AS PART OF ITS BU SINESS STRATEGY. THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. IN FACT , MOST OF THE COMPANIES DID NOT DECLARE ANY DIVIDEND WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT IT HAD EARNED A MEAGER DIVIDEND OF RS.24,138. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME AND THA T THE EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED FROM SHARES ACQUIRED BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION. THE ASSESSEE EVEN 7 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 CHALLENGED THE COMPUTATION OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVE STMENTS HELD AS ON 01 ST DAY AND LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO ARGUE THAT IT HAD TAKEN MARKET VALUE OF SHARES HELD BY AMALGAMATION WHEREAS ITS COST PRICE IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE MARKET PRICE. THE AO HAS TAKEN MARKET VALUE OF SHA RE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/R 8D(2)(III) AS A RES ULT THEREON WILL GIVE A DISTORTED AND INCORRECT FIGURE. THE SUM AND SUBSTA NCE OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE SHALL BE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TOWARDS EXPENDITURE AS ITS INVESTMENTS ARE STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS IN GROUP COMPANIES AND ALSO THE SHARES ARE HELD BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION. IF AT ALL ANY DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED, THEN THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE AO BY T AKING MARKET VALUE OF SHARES HELD BY AMALGAMATION NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. 8. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF SUB SECTION (2), THE AO SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURR ED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UND ER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF THE AO I S NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (3), THE PROVISIO NS OF SUB SECTION (2) SHALL ALSO APPLY IN THE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT N O EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. SIMILARLY, U/R 8D, THE METHOD IS 8 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 PRESCRIBED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELAT ION TO EXEMPT INCOME. AS PER RULE 8D(2)(I) & (II) PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DIRECT EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO EXEMPT INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENSES WORKED OUT O N THE BASIS OF FORMULA PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER. RULE 8D(2)(III) PROVIDES FO R DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE O F INVESTMENTS. FROM A CONJOINED READING OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF IT RU LES MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE AO SHALL COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PRESCRIBED FORMULA, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE INCURRED NO EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. THIS LEGAL POSITION IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE & MFG CO LTD VS C IT 328 ITR 81 (BOM), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D SHALL BE APPLICABLE FROM AY 2008-09 ONWARDS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE U/ 14A R.W.R. 8D IS APPLICABLE, THE MO MENT ASSESSEE IS HAVING EXEMPT INCOME. 9. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE NOT INCUR RED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME AS THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES HEL D AS STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS IN GROUP COMPANIES AS A PROMOTER, BUT NOT AS INVEST MENTS TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT IT HAD IN VESTMENTS IN SHARES AS A RESULT OF AMALGAMATION BUT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXP ENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE 9 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 REASON THAT ON PERUSAL OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VARIOUS INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS INCLUDING SHARES IN SUBSIDI ARY COMPANIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROV E ITS CLAIM THAT IT HAD INVESTMENTS ONLY IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AS STRATEG IC INVESTMENTS. INSOFAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO NO DISA LLOWANCE U/S 14A, WHEN SHARES ARE ACQUIRED BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VARIOUS INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS INCL UDING IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF GREAVES LEASING & FINANCE LTD VS ITO (SUPRA) FAILS, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DI VIDEND INCOME FROM SHARES HELD BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION AND HAS NOT INCURRED AN Y EXPENDITURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS VARI OUS INVESTMENTS INCLUDING INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARIES AND ALSO IT IS A FACT THAT THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT THROW ANY LIGHT TO PROVE THAT DIV IDEND INCOME IS EARNED FORM SHARES HELD BY WAY OF AMALGAMATION ONLY, THERE FORE, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. COMING TO THE SECOND ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IT HAD EARNED MEAGER DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.24,138 A S AGAINST WHICH, THE AO 10 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.3,36,28,000 WHICH IS MORE TH AN THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A CANNOT EXCEED AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON CASE LA WS IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS P LTD VS CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (DEL( H ELD THAT THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOWANCE IS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A AND IS ONL Y TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO TAX EXEMPT INCOME. THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME SURE LY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. WE FUR THER NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HOL CIM INDIA PVT LTD (2014) 272 CTR 282 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO DISAL LOWANCE U/S 14A IN THE ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE SE JUDGMENTS IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED EXEMPT INCOME. IN THIS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.24,138, WHEREAS THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF R S RS.3,36,28,000. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE RATIOS OF THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABO VE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOM E. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE EXTENT O F EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 ITA 4658/MUM/2015 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 26 TH JULY, 2017 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI