V.N. KARBHATKAR, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4797/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3789 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 147; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F, BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSA IN, JM ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) SHRI V. N. KARVATKAR, 4-5, CHAPEL AVENUE, CHAPEL ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI 400050 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(3) (4), MUMBAI PAN: AACPK 2651 B APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI NITESH JOSHI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR DAS, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11-05-2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN,J.M : THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-30, MUMBAI DATED 26-05 -2014 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CIT (A)-30/ITO 19/IT-173/12-13 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SIX ELABORATE GROUNDS BUT, THE MOOT QUESTION INVOLVED T HEREIN IS WHETHER CONFIRMATION OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 READ WITH 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS VAL ID OR NOT. HENCE, THE BENCH PREFERRED TO HEAR THE CASE ONLY ON THE MAIN G ROUND I.E. GROUND NO.1 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF REF ERENCE:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREI NAFTER CALLED THE CIT (A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 READ WITH 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE AC) IS VALID. ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CAS E ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U /S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 18-12-2007 DETERMINING THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,29,133/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,61,470/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN RS.65 LACS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCER N M/S. VENUS CONFECTIONERS AS SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR OTHERS. THE NARRATION TO THE SAID ENTRY WAS GIVEN AS ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST TRANSF ER OF TENANCY RIGHTS FROM M/S. STREAMLINE BUILDERS. FROM THE DETAILS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, IT WAS ASCERTAINED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED ITS TENANCY RIGHTS AT THE GROUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR OF VILLA MARIA, PLOT NO.54, CTS NO.B/337, REVELLO ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI -50 V IDE AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 27-05-2004. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS AGREED AT RS.65 LACS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IN FAVOUR OF SHOP NO.5, CHAPEL AVENUE, CTS NO.240 & 241, CHAPEL ROAD, BANDRA (WEST ), MUMBAI-50. IN VIEW OF THAT AGREEMENT DATED 27-05-2004 THE ASSESSE E HAD RECEIVED PAYMENT. THEREFORE, WHILE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 2 (47) OF THE IT ACT READ WITH SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PRO PERTY ACT, IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION W AS COMPLETED ON 27-05- 2004 I. E. ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUT ED/REGISTERED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE VIEW AND AFTER RECORDING REAS ONS FOR REOPENING, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT DATED 28 TH ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 3 MARCH, 2012 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 30-03-2012 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E AO REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, PASSED THE RE-AS SESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON 17-12-2 012. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), WHO IN TURN, GRANTED PART RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED BY T HIS ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFO RE US MAINLY CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF CONFIRMATION OF THE REA SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 4. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ARGUMENTS ON THIS I SSUE, THE LEARNED AR AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT INITIAL LY ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 18-12-2007 AND THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED ON 28-03-201 2 WHICH CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE PROCESS FOR REOPENING THE ASS ESSMENT STARTED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS. PROCEEDING FURTHER WITH HIS A RGUMENTS, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS CARRYIN G ON PROPRIETARY BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. VENUS CON FECTIONERS. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 31-10-2005 DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,61,470/- AND THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 18-12-2007 THEREBY ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AT RS.2,29,130/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SUCH AS AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FORMING PAR T OF AUDITED FINAL ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 4 ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH ORIGINAL RETURN OF IN COME ON 31-03-2005. ITEM NO.16 OF SCHEDULE VII SHOWS THAT ADVANCE OF RS .20 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. STREAMLINE BUILDERS AGAINST RELE ASE OF TENANCY RIGHTS ARE STILL UNADJUSTED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FINAL ACCOUNTS WERE FILE D ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AS SHOW-CAUSED BY THE AO. APART FROM THE ABO VE, THE LEARNED AR ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS BEFO RE THE AO ON 26-05- 2007. THE DETAILS OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM M/S. ST REAMLINE BUILDERS READ AS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DURING 2003-04 RS.20 LACS TOWARDS RELINQUISHING TENANCY RIGHTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED THIS PAYMENT IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12-08-2002 AND 27-05-2 004. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE H AS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE SAID NO TICE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MATERIALS AS STATED HAD COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF TH E AO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR THE SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNT WAS AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 27-05-2004 A ND THAT AS PER THIS AGREEMENT OUT OF RS.65 LACS, RS.20 LACS WAS RECEIVE D DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AN D RS.45 LACS WAS RECEIVED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS A DVANCE AGAINST RELINQUISHING TENANCY RIGHTS AS ON 31-03-2005 AND 3 1-03-2006 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE THAT PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30-12-2006, THE DEVELOPER HAD TRANSFERRED SHOP NO.5 AND THE SHARES PERTAINING TO THE SAID SHOP IN ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 5 OWNERSHIP BASIS WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT THE POSSESS ION OF THE SAID PREMISES WAS HANDED OVER ON 30-12-2006 WHICH IS NOT FALLING UNDER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEN TRANSFER OF THE TENANT ED PROPERTY WAS HAND OVER TO THE TENANT. THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.17,13 ,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX, TDS AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX AND THE SA ID AMOUNT OF TAX IS ENTIRELY ON THE CAPITAL GAINS WHICH ARE OFFERED TO TAX. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE NO EVENT TOOK PLACE DURING THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE A O HAS WRONGLY ASSESSED THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06 BASED ON THE UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT VIDE PARAGRAPHS 5 TO 8 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED ON THIS PREL IMINARY GROUND AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. THE LEARNED DR REPRESENTING THE REVENUE BEFORE U S SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSELS WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ORIGINAL REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE PRESENT CASE ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2007 AND THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING ASSESSM ENT WAS ISSUED BY ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 6 THE AO ON 17 TH DECEMBER, 2012 BOTH THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED. THEREFORE, AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE NOTICE REGARDING REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE 1 OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT W HEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT WHEN ASSESSMENT U/S 14 3 (3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTI ON SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AFTER EXPIRY O F FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS ANY INCOME C HARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH THERE HAS BEEN BY REAS ON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE RETURN U/S 139 OF THE ACT OR NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY OR TRULY A LL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, OUR ATTEN TION WAS DRAWN BY THE LEARNED AR TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 19 I.E. REASONS FOR R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AO THA T IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.65 LACS IN THE B ALANCE SHEET OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. VENUS CONFECTIONERS AS SU NDRY CREDITOR FOR OTHERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FURTHER, OUR A TTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 22 PARA 3 (B) ITEM NO.7 OF LETTER DATED 26-05- 2007 AND THAT ITEM 3 I.E. LETTER DATED 15-11-2007 S PECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S. STREAMLINE BUILDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT DURING FINANCIAL YEA R 2003-04 RS.20 LACS TOWARDS RELINQUISHING THE TENANCY RIGHTS OF THE BAK ERY PREMISES AT BANDRA IN FAVOUR OF THE BUILDER/DEVELOPER M/S. STREAMLINE BUILDERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THIS PAYMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF AGREEM ENT DATED 27-05- ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 7 2004 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THIS ADVANCE RECE IPT TILL COMPLETION OF ALL THE FORMALITIES OF HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE BAKERY PREMISES AT BANDRA WHICH HAD BEEN COMPLETED DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2006-07. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT BEFORE RECORDING THE REAS ONS FOR REOPENING, THE INCOME HAS ALREADY STOOD OFFERED TO TAX FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE RECORDS THAT NO PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LACS WAS PAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 I. E. RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.45 LACS WAS PAID DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THUS THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS LIABI LITY AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2005. SINCE AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF RELINQUI SHMENT IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT APART FROM MAKING PAYMENT OF RS.65 L ACS AS PER CLAUSE 4 & 5 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27-05-2004 THE DEVELOPER WAS TO TRANSFER THE SHOP NO.5 TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID TRANSFER OF POSSESSION TOOK PLACE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2006 AND AS PER CLAUSE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2006 THE DEVELOPER HANDED OVER POSSESSION OF THE SHOP TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER COMPLE TION THE FORMALITIES. SINCE PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 4 AND 6 OF THE AGREEMENT D ATED 27 TH MAY, 2004 THE ASSESSEE HANDED OVER THE VACANT POSSESSION NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE RELINQUISHMENT OF OWNERSHIP TO OK PLACE ON COMPLETION OF FORMALITIES IN ALL RESPECT IN THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 IN TERMS OF BOTH THE AGREEMENTS. AS PER THE FACTUAL PO SITION AND THE FACTS DERIVED BY US FROM THE DOCUMENTS AS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AR THE ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 8 ASSESSEE DID NOT HANDOVER POSSESSION OF THE SHOP IN QUESTION DURING ANY TIME BEFORE DECEMBER, 2006 WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE W ITH THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE I.E. RS.20 LACS DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND RS.45 LACS DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH ALSO GOES TO SHOW THAT NO PART O F AMOUNT WAS EVER PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE , AS PER THE FACTUAL POSITION THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S 53A OF THE PR OPERTY ACT WERE FULFILLED ONLY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 WHICH IS RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THEREFORE, APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 53 OF THE PROPERTY ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WRONG. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT MAY FURTHE R BE MENTIONED HERE THAT EVEN THE AO HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN BLACK AND WHITE AS TO WHAT FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WHOLLY OR TRULY BEFORE HIM, WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING. THEREFOR E, ONCE THE VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS MISSING, THEN THE AO IS NOT EX PECTED TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT AND TO OPT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS REGARD WE FIN D SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. [268 I TR 332]. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH CHANDRA BHARGAVA V S ITO REPORTED IN 1974 TAX L. R. 7 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER :- 3. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT PRESUPPOS ES THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE BELIEF T HAT SOME INCOME HAS ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 9 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AT THE PRESENT MOMENT IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY MATERIAL FOR SUCH A BELIEF. THE INCOME WHIC H WAS SAID TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WAS SOUGHT TO BE ASSESSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPUGNED NOTICE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. FROM CO-JOINT READING OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE AO DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE REMAINED NOTHING TO BE DISCLO SED. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS SOUGHT TO BE ASSESSED BY WAY OF REOPENING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREAD Y OFFERED INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREON IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, EVEN BEFORE RECORDING OF REASONS FOR REOPENING. THEREFORE, IN O UR VIEW, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HENCE, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS THUS SET ASIDE AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS HEREBY I S RESTORED. 7. AS HAS BEEN STATED HEREIN ABOVE, ONLY GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED TO BE HEARD BY THE BENCH, WE FEEL NO NE ED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11-05-2016 . SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI , DATED 11.05.2016 ITA NO.4797/MUM/2014 10 LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//