NAVKAR ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, THANE

ITA 4722/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0368 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMLATHA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Search and seizure; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 4722/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES BLOCK NO. 2A, JAI HIND, BLDG. NO. 1, DR.A.M. ROAD, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI - 400 002 / VS. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 3, THANE ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAFFN 6721 J ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. RITIKA AGARWAL / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. N. HEMLATHA / DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02 .2018 / O R D E R PER S HAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, THANE DATED 31.05.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. BE CAUSE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 148 ALTHOUGH THE REOPENING WAS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND MANDATORY APPROVAL U/S. 151 OF THE ACT WAS NOT SHOWN TO EXIST. 2 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT 2. BECAUSE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 148 WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT FULFILLING NECESSARY CONDITIONS IN THIS REGARD. 3. BECAUSE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES TO BE BOGUS, IN SPITE OF VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCES ON RECORD SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF VENDORS WERE NOT PROVIDED AND THE VENDORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. 4. BECAUSE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT STOOD RETRACTED THROUGH AFFIDAVIT. 5. BECAUSE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,56,525/ - MADE BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE WRONGLY PREMISE THAT THE QUANTITATIVE STOCK DETAILS WERE NOT PROVIDED . 6. BECAUSE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,56,525/ - MADE BY THE RESPONDENT BY MAKING COMPARISON WITH NOTIONAL INCOME AND NOTIONAL BROKERAGE EXPENSES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, SPECIFIC INFORMAT ION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE O/O. DGIT(INV), MUMBAI THAT THE ENTITIES, FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED MATERIAL/GOODS, WERE ENTRY PROVIDERS. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM ONE OF THE LEADING ENTRY PR OVIDERS OPERATING IN MUMBAI, VIZ. SHRI PRAVEE N KUMAR JAIN GROUP. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, CARRIED OUT IN THE CASES OF THIS GROUP ON 01.10.2013, THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THE MODUS OPERANDI AND LED TO DET ECTION OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THESE PARTIES HAD STATED, ON OATH, BEFORE THEM THAT THEY HAVE MERELY PROVIDED ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIARIES AND NO GOODS WERE ACTUALLY DELIVERED BY THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE INFORMATION HAD INITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AFTER RECORDING NECESSARY REASONS/SATISFACTIONS, BY WAY OF ISSUE OF 3 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM ABOVE REFERRED P ARTIES, SINCE THESE PURCHASES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, GOODS RECEIPT NOTES, OCTROI RECEIPTS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS. THEREFORE, IN ORD ER TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF ABOVE PURCHASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESORTED TO CALL FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, FROM ALL THESE PARTIES, HOWEVER, THE LETTERS/NOTICES ISSUED TO ALL SUCH PARTIES, WERE RETURNED UN - SERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORI TIES WITH THE REMARK 'NO SUCH PARTY EXISTS'. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. UPON THE ASSESSEES APP EAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 148 ALTHOUGH THE REOPENING WAS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND MANDATORY APPROVAL U/S. 151 OF THE ACT WAS NOT SHOWN TO EXIST. 4 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT 8. THIS GROUND HAS B EEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED THAT SHE HAS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR RAISING THE ABOVE GROUND. SINCE THE ABOVE GROUND IS NOT BASED UPON ANY COGENT DOCUMENT, THE ABOVE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. AS REGARDS THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSEE, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM DGIT INVESTIGATION (MUMBAI) THERE ARE SOME PARTIES WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE HAWALA TRANSACTIONS AND ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN ISSUING BOGU S PURCHASE BILLS FOR SALE OF MATERIAL WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS, WHICH INFORMATION WAS BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED BY REVENUE FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX AUTHORITY. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF HAWALA ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM ENTRY PROVIDERS BY WAY OF BOGUS PURCHASE. THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER HAS DEPOSED AND ADMITTED BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX AUTHORITY VIDE STATEMENT/ AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WHEREIN BOGUS SAL E BILLS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS, IN CONSIDERATION FOR COMMISSION. THESE, ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS, ON RECEIPT OF CHEQUES FROM PARTIES AGAINST BOGUS BILLS FOR SALE OF MATERIAL, LATER ON WITHDREW CASH FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH WAS RE TURNED TO BENEFICIARIES OF BOGUS BILLS AFTER DEDUCTION OF THEIR AGREED COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO BE ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THESE BOGUS ENTRIES OF SALE OF MATERIAL FROM HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE MADE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES THROUGH THESE BOGUS BILLS ISSUED BY HAWALA ENTRY 5 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT PROVIDERS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE DEALERS WERE SURVEYED BY THE SALES TAX INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT WHEREBY THE DIRECTORS OF THESE DEALERS HAVE ADMITTED IN A DEPOSITION VI DE STATEMENTS/AFFIDAVIT MADE BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN. ISSUING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF ANY MATERIAL. THERE IS A LIST OF SUCH PARTIES WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS PURCHASE BI LLS. 1 0 . FROM THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT TANGIBLE AND COGENT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WERE RECEIVED BY THE AO WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS PURCHASE ENTRIES FROM BOGUS ENTRY PROVIDERS WHICH FORMED THE REASON TO BELIEVE BY THE AO THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE INFORMATION SO RECEIVED BY THE AO HAS LIVE LINK WITH REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THESE INCRIMINATING TANGIBLE MATERIAL INFORMATION, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. AT THIS STAGE THERE HAS TO BE PRIMA FACIE BELIEF BASED ON SOME TANGIBLE AND MATERIAL INFORMATION ABOUT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND THE SAME IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED TO THE GUILT. IN THIS REGARD, I REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. RAJESH JHAV ERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD, 291 ITR 500: - 'SECTION 147 AUTHORISES AND PERMITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO LAX IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORD 'REASON' IN TH E PHRASE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE AO HAS CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE (HAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE EXPRESSION CANNO T BE READ TO MEAN THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT BY LEGAL STATUTE WITH SOLICITUDE FOR THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER WITH AN INBUILT 6 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT IDEA OF FAIRNESS TO TAXPAYERS. AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CENTRAL PROVINCES MANAGNESE ORE CO, LTD. V. ITO(1991) 191 ITR 662, FOR INITIATION OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 147(A) (AS THE PROVISION STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME) FULFILLMENT OF THE TWO REQUISITE CONDITIONS IN THAT REGARD IS ESSENTIAL. AT THAT STAGE, THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING IS NOT RELEVANT. IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE INITIATION STAGE, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS 'REASON TO BELIEVE', BUT NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. AT THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON C OULD HAVE FORMED A REQUISITE BELIEF WHETHER THE MATERIALS WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE ESCAPEMENT IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT STAGE. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE AO IS WITHIN THE REALM OF SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION ITO V. SELECTED DALURBAN D COAL CO, (P.) LTD. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SUPREME COURT): RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SUPREME COURT). 1 1 . THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT FROM APEX COURT FULLY JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN THIS CASE. FURTHER I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND HAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE ISSUE. HENCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING. SINCE, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION, THE OTHER CASE LAWS REFERRED BY ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE ASSESSEES CASE. 1 2 . AS REGARDS MERITS OF ADDITION, I FIND THAT CREDIBLE AND COGENT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THIS CASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT CERTAIN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER/BOGUS SUPPLIERS WERE BEING USED BY CERTAIN PARTIES TO OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS, ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY/BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS DURING THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. BASE D UPON THIS INFORMATION ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION RELATING TO REOPENING HAS 7 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND BY ITAT AS ABOVE. FURTHERMORE IT IS NOTED THAT IN SUCH FACTUAL SCENARIO ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE NECES SARY ENQUIRY. THE ISSUE OF NOTICE TO ALL THE PARTIES HAVE RETURNED UNSERVED. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM ANY OF THE PARTY . ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTIES. THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR TRANSPORTA TION OF GOODS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO IT IS AMPLY THAT ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. MERE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR PURCHASES CANNOT CONTROVERT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE PROVIDER OF THESE BILL S ARE BOGUS AND NON - EXISTENT AND THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN ITS ENQUIRY HAVE FOUND THE PARTIES TO BE PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICES TO THESE PARTIES AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE NOTICES HAVE RETURNED UNSERVED. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE OF THE PROVISION OF GOODS. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PARTIES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE PARTIES ARE NON - EXISTENT. 1 3 . HENCE PURCHASE BILLS FROM THESE NON - EXISTENT THE/BOGUS PARTIES CANNOT BE TAKEN AS COGENT EVIDENCE OF PURCHASES, IN LIGHT OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT PUT UPON BLINKERS AND ACCEPT THESE PURCHASES AS GENUINE. THIS PROPOSITION IS DULY SUPPORTED BY HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUMATI 8 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT DAYAL 214 ITR 801 AND DURGA PRASAD MORE 8 2 ITR 540. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WANTS THAT THE UNASSAILABLE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIERS ARE NON - EXISTENT AND THUS BOGUS SHOULD BE IGNORED AND ONLY THE DOCUMENTS BEING PRODUCED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THIS PROPOSITION IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LIGH T OF ABOVE APEX COURT DECISIONS. 1 4 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REFERRED TO HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF APEX APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2003 IN THE CASE OF N K INDUSTRIES VS DY CIT, ORDER DATED 20.06.2016, WHEREIN HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WAS HELD TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TRIBUNALS RESTRICTION OF THE ADDITION TO 25% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WAS SET ASIDE. IT WAS EXPOUNDED THAT WHEN PURCHASE BILLS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS 100% DISALLOWANCE WAS REQUIRED. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THIS ORDER ALONG WITH OTHERS HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.1.2017. 15 . I FURTHER NOTE THAT HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS SIMILARLY TAKEN NOTE OF DECI SIONS OF THE APEX COURT ON THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN THE CASE OF CIT JAIPUR VS SHRUTI GEMS IN ITA NO. 658 OF 2009. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF CIT JAIPUR VS. ADITYA GEMS, D. B. IN ITA NO. 234 OF 2008 DATED 02.11.2016, WHER EIN THE HONBLE COURT HAD INTER ALIA HELD AS UNDER: 'CONSIDERING THE LAW DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.8956/2015 DECIDED ON 06.04.2015 WHEREBY THE SUPREME CO URT HAS DISMISSED THE SLP CONFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2014 PASSED BY THE GUJARAT 9 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT HIGH COURT AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OILCAKE INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2009) 316 ITR 274 (GUJ) AND N.K. INDUS TRIES LTD. VS. DY. C.I.T., TAX APPEAL NO.240/2003 DECIDED ON 20.06.2016, THE PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW PRONOUNCED IN THE AFORESAID THREE JUDGMENTS. 1 6 . HOWEVER, I NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. HENCE, IT WILL NOT BE APPR OPRIATE TO CONSIDER AND TAKE AWAY THE RELIEF ALREADY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEN SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED 100% DISALLOWANCE FOR BOGUS PURC HASE IS NOT DISALLOWABLE. HENCE, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 1 7 . SINCE THE ABOVE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED FOLLOWING THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION, THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT R ELEVANT. 18. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.02.2018 SD/ - (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 05.02.2018 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS 10 IT A NO. 4722/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) M/S. NAVKAR ENTERPRISES VS. ASST. CIT / 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 ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI