ITO 13(2)(3), MUMBAI V. PARESH CHEMICALS, MUMBAI

ITA 4676/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2705 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SANI
• Keywords: Business income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 4676/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) ITO - 13(2) - 3, R. NO. 425, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20 / VS. PARESH CHEMICALS, PLOT NO. 236, 1 ST FLOOR, SAMUEL STREET, MUMBAI - 400 003 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAEFP 2676 H ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SANI / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 05.7.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .7.2016 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN A PPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 24 , MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 19.3.2014 , ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2008 - 09 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2010. 2 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RESPONDENT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. THERE BEING SIMILARLY NO REPRESENTATION BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE EARLIER DATES (OF HEARING) AS WELL, THE BENCH HAD DIRECTED SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING THROUGH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR). EVEN THIS HAS NOT, HOWEVER, YIELDED ANY POSITIVE RESULT IN - AS - MUCH AS THERE IS NO PROOF OF SERVICE ON RECORD, WIT H THE LD. DR ALSO BEING UNABLE TO STATE IF THE SAID SERVICE COULD BE EFFECTED, WHICH THE NON SERVICE BEING, AS IT APPEARS , ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT PROPER TO DISPOSE THE REVENUES APPEAL EX PARTE THE ASS ESSEE, I.E., ON MERITS, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE PARTY BEFORE US. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS. T HE ASSESSEE - FIRM, IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN CHEMICALS, WAS FOUND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR TH E RELEVANT YEAR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) AS BEING LIABLE TO TRADE CREDITORS, M/S. KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. (KRL) A ND M/S. TRIOX CHEMICALS P. LTD. (AS PER THE BALANCE - SHEET AS AT THE YEAR - END ) . NOTICES U/S. 133(6), SENT THERETO, BEING UNCOMPLIED WITH BY KRL, SUPPLYING AN ORGANIC CHEMICAL , T OLUENE , THE A.O. INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO THE SAID TRADE CREDITOR , REFLECT ED AT RS.92,35,837/ - AS ON 31/3/2008, CARRIED OVER FROM THE PAST, HAD SINCE CEASED TO EXIST. A GOVERNMENT COMPANY, AS KRL, SUPP LYING A LICEN S ED ITEM, WOULD NOT EXTEND CREDIT, AND THAT TOO FOR SO LONG. THE SAID A MOUNT WAS ACCORDINGLY ADDED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT AS DEEMED INCOME U/S. 41 (1) OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, WHEREAT THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE AO FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSE SSEES CASE, INCLUDING THE MATERIALS FURNISHED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS STAND. THE ASSESSEE BOUGHT TO LUENE , A LICENCED ITEM, FROM KRL, AS IT WAS LISTED THEREWITH. AS, HOWEVER, IT DID NOT HAVE A CONSIGNEE USER CERTIFICATE, THE SALES (TO THIRD PARTIES) W ERE RO U TED THROUGH ITS SISTER CONCERN, M / S . J AY P EE TRADING C OMPANY, WHICH HELD A CONSIGN EE USER CERTIFICATE, ENABLING IT TO ISSUE EXCISE GATE PASSES TO THE CUSTOMERS, WHO ( OR SOME OF WHOM) PAID DIRECTLY TO K RL. THIS LED TO THE 3 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS ACCUMULATION OF CREDIT (IN THE ACCOUNT OF K RL). BEFORE THE L D . CIT(A) , IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AS ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED ON ITS PAYMENTS TO K RL (NOW BHARAT P ETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD . BPCL), IT HAD BEEN CHARGED RS. 4,01,871 / - AS DELAYED PAYMENT CHARGES DURING F.Y. 2006 - 2007 WHICH THOUGH REMAINED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE, BESIDES INVOKING BANK GUARANTEE (AT RS. 53.33 L ACS ) , SO THAT THE BALANCE PAYABLE T O THE SAID COMPANY ( AS ON 31/3/2008 ) , AS PER AC COUNTS THEREOF, SINCE CONFIRMED BY IT (IN JANUARY, 2011) WAS RS.11, 65, 203 / - . AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), T HE RECOVERY THROUGH BANK GUARANTEE STOOD EVIDENCED BY BANK ADVI C ES, AND PAYMENT OF RS. 3 1,42,5 05 / - HAD BEEN MADE BY M / S . A S H C HEMICALS, A CUSTOMER AN D ULTIMATE USER. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE OUG HT TO HAVE RECORDED ENTRIES TO THIS EFFECT IN ITS ACCOUNTS, ITS FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD NOT IMPLY AN UNEXPLAINED CESSATION OF LIABILITY, I.E., IN THE FACE OF ABUNDANT EVIDENCE AS TO THE ENCASHMENT OF THE BANK GUARANTEE BY THE BANK AND THE PAYMENT BY M / S . A S H C HEMICALS, WHICH WAS CO LLECTING GOODS DIRECTLY FROM KRL . THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,63,332/ - THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT CHARGES OF RS.4.02 LACS, IS STILL OUTSTANDING. THE ADDITION FOR THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.92.36 LACS WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES THE ASSESSEE BEING THOUGH UNREPRESENTED BEFORE US , SO THAT ITS CASE IS TAKEN AS THAT BEFORE THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES, REMAIN S THE SAME. THE PRIMARY FACTS, BY NOW CLEAR, ARE NOT DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO KRL AS ON 31.3.2008, DETAILED AS UNDER, IS RS.11.65 LACS, SINCE CONFIRMED BY THE SAID COMPANY, SO THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE I N ACCOUNT: (AMT. IN RS.) CREDIT BALANCE OF KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESS EE AS AT 31/3/2008 92,35,837/ - ADD: DELAYED PAYMENT CHARGES D EBITED BY M/S. KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. BUT NOT ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING F.Y. 2006 - 07 4,01, 871/ - 96,37,708/ - 4 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS LESS: 1. BANK GUARANTEE EN - CASHED & CREDITED BY KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. BUT NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ( EVIDENCED BY COPY OF B ANK ADVICES) 53,33,000 2. PAY ORDERS DIRECTLY DEPOSITED BY THIRD PARTIES WITH KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. & WHICH W ERE CREDITED BY M/S. KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, NO CORRESPONDING ENTRY W AS PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE ( EVIDENCED BY COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS) 31,42,505 [(1) + (2)] 84,72,505 DEBIT BALANC E AS PER KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. CONFIRMATION (96,37,708 84,72,505) 11,65,203 THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, IS NOT OF ANY UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT , WHICH THE LD . CIT(A) HAS CONFUSED IT AS. SECTION 41(1) GETS ATTRACTED ON THE CUMULATIVE SATISFACTION OF TWO EVENTS , I.E.: (A) CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY (IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAD AT ANY TIME IN THE PAST CLAIMED AND BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION ) ; AND (B) ANY BENEFIT (IN CASH OR IN KIND) STANDS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CESSATION. IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE CREDIT OF KRL IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS IS A TRADE LIABILITY QUA WHICH IT HAS, BY WAY OF PURCHASE COST OF GOODS (TOLUENE), SECURED DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF ITS BUSINESS INCOME . THE ACTUAL LIABILITY THERETO AS A T 31.3.2008 IS R S.7,63,332/ - (I.E., RS.11 , 65 , 203 AS PER THE ACCOUNTS OF KRL ( ) RS.4,01,871, NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE). THERE IS, THUS, AN ADMITTED CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8 4 ,7 2, 505/ - (RS. 92,35,837 - RS.7,63, 3 32). THE FIRST LIMB OF S ECTION 41(1) IS THUS SATISFIED. WHERE THE DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY IS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SOURCE THEREOF, RECORDED THEREIN, CAN BE ASCERTAIN ED WITH REFERENCE THERETO , AND EXPLANATION QUA THE SAME, WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT DEEMED N ECESSARY, SOUGHT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, THE DISCHARGE HAVING NOT BEEN 5 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS, IT WA S INCUMBENT TO I NQUIR E ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID DISCHARGE, SO AS TO ASCERTAIN IF ANY BENEFIT HAS I NURE D TO THE ASSESSEE, AND IF THER E IS THUS A CASE FOR APPLICATION FOR SECTION 41(1) TO ANY EXTENT. THIS, L A TTER, ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN ENQUIRED INTO BY THE LD. CIT(A); HE RESTING CONTENT WITH AN EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO AND ON BEING SATISFIED OF THERE BEING NO UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE (BETW EEN THE TWO PARTIES) IN THE AMOUNT STANDING PER THE IR RE SPECTIVE ACCOUNT S AS ON 31.3.2008, I.E., OUT OF THE TOTAL CREDIT OF RS.92.36 LACS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON THAT DATE. THAT, RATHER, CONFIRMS OF THE I R BEING A CESSATION OF LIA BILITY ( FOR RS.84.73 LACS), ONE OF THE INGREDIENTS FOR THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 41(1), SO THAT THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY AN ENQUIRY QUA THE SECOND ASPECT THEREOF. THIS IS MORE SO AS THE NON - PASSING OF THE ENTRIES BY THE ASSESSEE IS ITSELF QU IZZICAL , WITH THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF RECORD ING (AT PARA 3.4.4 OF HIS ORDER) OF IT BEING I N EXPLICABLE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE, SUPPLYING GOODS THROUGH M/S. JAY PEE TRADING CO . , WITH WHICH IT SHARED COMMON BUSINESS PREMISES, HAD NOT PASSED THE NECESSARY ENTRI ES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHAT WOULD BE, OR COULD BE, THOSE ENTRIES, WE NEED NOT SPECULATE AT THIS STAGE, DEPEND AS IT WOULD ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE SOURCES WHERE - FROM THE LIABILITY TO THAT EXTENT, STANDS DISCHARGED. THE FALLAC Y IN THE APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) GETS REFLECTED IN HIS STATING THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE OR SOMEONE ELSE ON HIS BEHALF HAD PAID THE BALANCE AMOUNT (RS.84.73 LACS). IF THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID THE AMOUNT, HE SHOULD STATE SO , ALONG WITH THE SOURCES WHEREFROM THE PAYMENT STANDS MADE, AND AS REGARDS SOMEONE ELSE, WHY, WE WONDER, WOULD SOMEONE PAY ON THE ASSESSEES BEHALF. THEN, AGAIN, WHO IS THIS SOMEONE ELSE? THE REVENUES CASE, RATHER, COULD NOT BE LIMITED TO THE APPLICATION OR OTHERWISE OF SECTION 41(1) , AN D MAY WELL EXTEND TO ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISION/S, AS WHERE IT FINDS, AS A RESULT OF ITS ENQUIRIES, ANY UNDISCLOSE D ASSETS WITH THE ASSESSEE; ITS P UR VIEW BEING THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RS.31.42 LACS HAS BEEN EXPLA INED AS PAID DIRECTLY BY A TRADE DEBT OR , M/S . ASH CHEMICALS, TO WHOM GOODS WERE SOLD. THE DEBIT 6 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS BALANCE OF THE SAID FIRM IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ARISING OUT OF THE SALES THERETO, WOULD THEREFORE STAND TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. WHAT ARE THOS E SALE BILLS/INVOICES? DO THEY STAND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS? IF SO, IS THE AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO ABSORB THE SAID REDUCTION, AND DOES THE REDUCED BALANCE AGREE WITH THAT AS PER THE BOOKS OF THE SAID PARTY? WHERE SO, THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT, A SCRIBED TO THE SAID PARTY, GETS FULLY EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS, SO THAT ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED IS A PASSING OF A JOURNAL ENTRY ADJUSTING THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEB TOR AND THE CREDITOR TO THAT EXTENT (RS.31,42,505) , NON - PASSING OF WHIC H CAN BY NO MEANS BE REGARDED AS FATAL . AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT BY BANK ON THE INVOCATION OF BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FAVOUR BY KRL, SURELY THE BANK WOULD NOT PAY WITHOUT SECURING ITSELF , PAYING PRESUMABLY ONLY OUT OF FUNDS MADE AVAILAB LE BY THE ASSESSEE THERETO, OR THE LIKE. BANK - GUARANTEE IS AN OFF - BALANCE SHEET ITEM, WITH THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS NOT REFLECTING ITS INVOCATION, OR PAYMENT THUS, ONLY WHEREUPON COULD THE SOURCE THEREOF BE KNOWN. IS IT THAT T HE BANK HAS RELEASED A LINE OF CREDIT IN THE ASSESSEES FAVOUR? OR IS IT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED FUNDS AT T HE DISPOSAL OF THE BANK , TO BE SO APPLIED IN CASE OF SUCH A CONTINGENCY ( I.E., OF NON - PAYMENT). THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.53.33 L ACS IS COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINED, AND WHICH WO ULD THEREFORE ALSO REQUIRE BEING EXAMINED , NECESSITATING A REMISSION TO THE A.O . FINALLY, WE MAY CONSIDER THE LAST COMPONENT OF THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS. 92.36 LACS, I.E., THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS AT THE YEAR - END , OR RS.7.63 LACS , REFLECTED , AGAIN, AS A LIABILITY IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS , WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITOR. T HOUGH, THEREFORE, PRIMA FACIE SUGGESTIVE OR INDICATIVE OF A LIABILITY, THAT BY ITSELF COULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVE OF THE MATTER, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE FOUND THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A S NOT REFLECTING THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. SIMILARLY, THE NON WRITE OFF OF THE DEBT BY KRL, WHICH MAY BE HOPEFUL OF RECOVERY, WOULD ALSO NOT CONCLUDE OR BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE M ATTER. THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION , DESPI TE LEGAL OBLIGATION, I.E., ASSUMING SO, IS: D OES THE ASSESSEE INTEN D OF PAY THE SAME ? GOING BY THE ASSESSEES CONDUCT, IT DOES NOT . OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED 7 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS PAYING KRL, WHICH APPEARS TO BE FOR LONG, COMPELLING IT TO CHARG E DELAYED PAYMENT CHARGES AND , FINALLY , INVO K E THE BANK GUARANTEE IN ITS FAVOUR. A GOOD PART OF THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING STANDS PAID DIRECTLY BY A CUSTOMER. WHY? THE SUPPLIER (KRL), IT NEEDS TO BE BORNE IN MIND, IS SELLING A LICENSED ITEM ( THROUGH REGISTERED DEALERS ) , AND RECOVERS , AS A MATTER OF POLICY , PAYMENT OF GOODS IN ADVANCE (REFER GROUND # 2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), REPRODUCED AT PG. 1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER), I.E., DOES NOT EXTEND ANY CREDIT TO ITS CUSTOMERS . IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT WE REGARD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTENT B Y THE ASSESSEE AS RELEVANT; THE C REDITOR HAVING ALREADY , AS IT APPEARS, EXHAUSTED THE BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED IN ITS FAVOUR. H OW WOULD THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISH ITS INTENT TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT, AS IMPLIED BY ITS HOLDING OUT THE SAME AS A SUBSISTING LIABILIT Y, WE CANNOT PREDICATE, BEING IN FACT A MATTER OF EVIDENCE . DOES THE COMPANY HA VE ANY MEANS TO RECOVER EXCEPT , OF COURSE , BY INITIATING A LEGAL PROCESS ? H AS IT DONE SO AT ANY TIME? WHEN DOES THE SAME GET BARRED BY TIME? HAS ANY PA RT OF LIABILITY B EEN DISCH ARGED SUBSEQUENT TO 31.3.2008 ? THESE A ND OTHER RELATED QUESTIONS ARISE, ON THE BASIS OF ANSWERS TO ALL OF WHICH ONLY WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO SAY IF THERE HAS OCCURRED, OR NOT SO, A CESSATION OF LIABILITY QUA THE SAID BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7.63 LACS , I.E., A S ON 31.3.2008. 6. THE MATTER IS , IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR PROPER DETERMINATION , TO BE DECIDED AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE HIM, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT WE MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING ISSUED ANY FINDING IN THE MATTER, BUT AS HAVING ONLY ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE (WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE) SAID CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS INCOME UNDER THE ACT. FURTHER, LEST ONE CONSIDERS U S AS HAVING TRAVELLED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL, WE MAY ADVERT TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 ( SC) AND AH MEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. V. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (BOM)(FB). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8 ITA NO. 4676/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) ITO VS. PARESH CHEMICALS 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 15 . 2016 SD/ - SD / - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 15 .0 7 .2016 . . ./ 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