SUREAKSHA DB REALTY, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

ITA 482/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8976 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 148; 69C; 15; 139; 143(3); 80IB; 250; 139(1); 72; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Suraksha DB Realty Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali (west), Mumbai-400 067 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of income-tax 30(3), Room No.601, C-13, 6 th Floor, BKC, Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ABOFS0694R Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Department by : Shri OP Sharma, CIT DR Date of hearing: 10-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 08-09-2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by assessee against the appellate order of The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [the learned CIT (A)] dated 29 December 2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ―1. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is illegal and bad in law. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not holding that the reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act was illegal and bad in law. 3. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in concurring with the view of the Assessing Officer that the return of income manually filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act within due date was an invalid return as it was not filed electronically. Page | 2 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 4. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80-lB of the Act claimed at ₹52,18,31,943/- solely as a consequence of the treatment given to the return of income manually filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 5. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹9,80,300/- made u/s. 69C of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.‖ 02. Facts show that assessee is a firm engaged in business of real-estate development. Assessee has filed return of income on 30 September 2011, [in paper format and not online] declaring gross total income of ₹52,18,31,943/-. It also claimed deduction under section 80 IB (10) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of the same amount and offered total income at ₹ Nil. 03. Later on, Assessing Officer found that information has been received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, that assessee has obtained accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchases of ₹9,80,300/-, therefore, after recording reasons, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 22 nd April, 2014. 04. In response to that, assessee submitted that original return filed might be considered as return of income filed in response to the above notice. Subsequent to that, the requisite notices were issued. 05. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to furnish the details of purchases for verification as well as to produce suppliers to prove genuineness of purchases. On 1/02/2016, Assessee submitted copies of purchase bills, delivery challans, bank payments details, copies of accounts etc. However, it expressed its inability to produce parties. As key persons of the suppliers have denied to have made any genuine sale to their customers before the Sale Tax Authorities, and as assessee failed to produce the suppliers Page | 3 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 for verification, the learned Assessing Officer held that assessee has failed to discharge its onus, Hence, ₹9,80,300/- was added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act. 06. At the time of recording reasons, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not filed any return for Assessment Year 2011-12. However, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee has submitted to treat the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act on 30 September 2011 as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer examined whether on ITD system return filed by assessee is available or not. The learned Assessing Officer found that return for Assessment Year 2011-12 is not available. Assessee was questioned about the ROI. Assessee submitted that in terms of its written submissions dated 20 th September, 2011 and 30 th September, 2011 addressed to ACIT, Central Circle-32, Mumbai for filing the return in physical format along with audited financial statements and form no. 10CCB for the reason that the Director of the Company were jailed and the digital signature could not be affixed of the signatory to the return of income, Therefore, Assessee filed return of income manually [ In paper format and not online] on 30 th September, 2011 and therefore the same is not available on ITD. 07. The learned Assessing Officer held that physical return filed on 30 September 2011 is not a valid return filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench in case of shri Dwarkadas G. Panchmatiya vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4727/Mum/2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 dated 30 January 2015. Accordingly, he held that the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act does not satisfy the conditions prescribed under section 80AC of the Act, which are mandatory. He therefore, disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Act of ₹52, 18, 31,943/-. Page | 4 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 08. Consequently, ld AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act read with section 147 of the Act on 28 th March, 2016 assessing total income of the assessee at ₹52,28,12,243/-. Thus, in the assessment order the learned Assessing Officer made two adjustments [1] Addition under section 69C of the Act of ₹9,80,300/- for failure to justify purchases for which assessment is reopened u/s 147 of the Act and [2] Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act of ₹52,18,31,943/-. 09. The assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment on several counts but the LD CIT [A] held that ― 12. So far as reopening of the instant case is concerned, it is found that the information from Sales Tax Department and DGIT (investigation), was very much specific relevant revealing the accommodation entries taken by the appellant. The information related to bogus purchase claimed by the appellant was undoubtedly a fresh and tangible material to reopen the case. In this regard, I do not agree with the AR that the AO has merely relied upon the information received from investigation wing to reopen the appellant’s case and no independent conclusion was formed by AO. 13 The DGIT (investigation), Mumbai communicated about the information regarding fictitious purchases/sales of accommodation entries wherein the appellant was a beneficiary of accommodation bills provided by five entities as mentioned in the assessment order without actual delivery of goods to the extent of ₹ 980,300/– during AY 2011 – 12. On the basis of the above stated facts, the AO reached to the conclusion that since the assessee had not purchased any goods from the five bogus parties, the expenditure to the extent of ₹ 980,300/– representing purchases made from such parties was inflated by the assessee. Page | 5 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 14. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO issued notice u/s 148 as per the provisions contained in the Section 147 of the IT act, 1961. The AO had formed the reason of escapement of income from taxation after noticing that no return of income was filed by the appellant for the year under consideration, as per the prescribed procedure as well as the information received from the DGIT (investigation) regarding the alleged bogus purchases made by the appellant. Non-e-filing of return of income and the information received were tangible material in the hands of AO, which resulted into the formation of the reason to believe that the income to the extent of ₹ 980,300/– chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2011 – 12. Once such a reason to believe has been formed by the AO on the basis of material available with him, he is well within his powers to issue notice u/s 147/148 as per procedure prescribed in that Section. Such formation of the reason to believe was on the basis of the information available which the AO was in his possession and acted upon and therefore the reopening of the assessment in this case cannot be faulted. 15. It is trite that the court should examine as to whether or not there was a reasonable belief on the part of the AO to come to a prima facie view that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, if on examination of the facts on record, it can be held that there was a prima facie belief, the reopening of assessment has to be held valid. Sufficiency of reasons cannot be questioned at the initial stage. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, I am of the opinion that the objections of the appellant regarding the reopening of the case u/s 147/148 for the year under consideration are not valid, hence dismissed. Thus, the action of the AO in issuing the notice u/s 148 is upheld. Hence, the grounds challenging reopening and passing of the order are found to be without merit and hence rejected.‖ 010. On the validity of the return of income filed under section 139(1) manually, he upheld the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed that the return is an invalid return holding as under :- ―17. Now coming to the issue whether return of income filed manually will be a valid return when provisions of Section 139 (1) clearly prescribed the requirement of filing return Page | 6 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 electronically with the digital signature in view of rule 12 (3) (ii) of IT rules applicable for the year Under consideration. 18. The AO has noted in para 4.2 of the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted acknowledgement dated 30/9/2011 of ACIT, Central Circle – 32, Mumbai with respect to filing of copy of physical return in form number ITR – V. According to the AO, Under the provisions of Section 139 (1), every firm is required to furnish the return electronically with the digital signature in view of the provisions of rule 12 (3) (ii) read with proviso (aaa) of The Income Tax Rules. As such, the appellant was required to furnish the return in ITR – V electronically under digital signature. Hence, the physical return filed on 30/9/2011 with the then AO cannot be treated as valid return filed u/s 139 (1). The AO has also relied upon the circular of the CBDT wherein every assessee was required to file return electronically with the digital signature from the assessment year 2010 – 11 and thus furnishing of return electronically with digital signature was mandatory for the year 2010 – 11 onwards. 19. The AO has also noted that the signature of all the partners appear on form number 3CEB which was completed on 14 th /9/2011. It is also found that the appellant had prepared the profit and loss account and all the partners signed the documents on 21/05/2011. However, no signature of the partner is found in form number 10CCB. This demonstrates that the books of accounts of the firm were completed in the month of May 2011 itself and the audit were completed on 14/9/2011. The due date for filing of the return was 30/9/2011. Hence, the appellant firm does not have any reason not to arrange for the registration of another digital signature in the system, even if claim of the appellant is accepted that the main promoters of the DB group were arrested in the matter related to 2G scam. According to the AO, there is no provision in the I-T act which stipulates that the appellant firm may file the return physically in the condition where an appellant is prevented to file the return of income electronically. Hence, the physical return filed on 30/9/2011 is treated as invalid return by the AO. 20. On the other hand, according to the learned AR the main promoter of the DB group, namely Shri Shahid Balwa, and also Mr Rajeev Agarwal who are arrested and jailed in relation to the matters relating to the 2G scam. Due to this, no person in the DB group was ready to cooperate in giving the digital signature of the concerned person who is director of a partner company. Thus, the partners were not able to obtain digital signature and use the same for electronic filing. The electronic filing process were initiated but due to lack of digital signature, the appellant could not complete the uploading of the return electronically. Page | 7 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 The learned AR has relied upon the provisions of Section 292B. According to him, no return of income will be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such a return of income, if such return of income is in substance and in effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the IT act. As per learned AR the return of income filed manually on 30/9/2011 cannot be considered as invalid since it is in substance and in conformity with the intended purpose of the act. At best, the return of income may be considered as defective but same cannot be considered as invalid return. Moreover, if the return has been treated as defective return, then the appellant firm would have received the notice stating that the return of income is as defective. However, till date no such notice was received. The learned AR has relied upon the board circular number 14 (XL – 35) of 1955, dated 11/4/1955. In view of the above facts in explanation, return of income filed by the appellant needs to be considered as a valid return filed u/s 139 (1). 21. After thought for consideration, I am not persuaded by the aforesaid arguments of the learned that AR of the appellant. 1) Every person,— (a) being a company or a firm ; or (b) being a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed : 22. It is observed that Under rule 12 (3) (AAA) of IT rules, for assessment year 2011 – 12, a firm required to furnish the return in form number ITR – 5 shall furnish the return for assessment year 2011 – 12 and subsequent assessment years in the manner specified in clause (ii) of the said rules, which is furnishing the return electronically Under digital signature. The rule states as Under:- { Rule 12 (3) (aaa) [ Not extracted by us] } The rule uses the words ―shall’. This makes it compulsory furnishing of return electronically under digital signature only. Hence, it is mandatory for the appellant including the assessee to furnish the return in form number ITR – 5 to file return electronically under digital signature. The Section 139 (1) read with rule 12 (3) (aaa) does not give any option to an assessee Page | 8 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 to file return manually who is otherwise required to file electronically under digital signature. Therefore in my considered opinion, if an assessee files return of income manually u/s 139 (1), who is otherwise required to file return electronically with digital signature, such return will be non- est , as if the return does not exist or an invalid return. 23. The learned AR contention that the manual return of income may be considered as defective but not invalid return is without any merit. The return of income compulsory required to be filed electronically, but filed manually will not partake the character of return of income filed u/s 139 (1) as per provisions of Section 139 (9) of the IT act related to defective return. There are two basic requirements for treating return as defective return. There should be a valid return of income furnished by the assessee and thereafter it should be in the opinion of the assessing officer that the said valid return of income is defective. I find that both the basic requirements are lacking in the instant case. As stated in the preceding paragraph, there is no valid return of income filed by the appellant for the year under consideration, in the form and manner prescribed u/s 139 (1) read with rule 12 (3). Further, the AO has not treated the manual return as defective since considered opinion of the AO is a prerequisite for treating the return as defective. Hence, the alternative argument of the learned AR of the appellant lacks merit. 24. It is also observed that the main reason professed by the appellant, for non-filing of the electronic return with digital signature is the main promoters of the DB group were arrested in relation to the 2G scam. Hence, no person in the DB group was ready to cooperate in giving the digital signature. I find no substance in the above argument of the learned AR. Mr. Sahid Balwa was arrested for his role in 2G Spectrum scam by CBI on 0 th February 2011. No doubt , Mr Shahid Balwa was not given bail till November 2011, but the same could not be a reason for the appellant to procure digital signature in any manner. It is observed that there are seven partners, all private limited companies, of the appellant firm M/s DB properties private limited was holding 50 % percent profit sharing ratio while rest 50% profit were shared among six other companies. As the paper book submitted during the appellate proceedings, all the seven partners (directors/authorised signatories of the companies) have signed the annual accounts for assessment year 2011 – 12 including working of total income for tax computation, tax audit report in form number 3CB form number 3CD, balance sheet, profit and loss account. With the signature of one of the partners, directors of M/s sejraj financial services Ltd, these details were submitted before the ACIT central circle – 32, Mumbai. Under these circumstances, the claim of the Page | 9 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 learned AR fails flat, that due to arrest of Mr Balwa , digital signature could not be procured by the appellant firm. It is very unlikely that none of the directors of seven companies, being partners in the appellant firm was not able to procure digital signature for the purpose of electronically filing return of income just because Mr Balwa was Under arrest. If that was the reason, none of these companies could have filed their returns of income as well as for any other statutory work. Moreover, filing of return of income by a firm electronically, was made compulsory much before financial year 2010 – 11. Hence, there was no reason for the appellant firm to postpone procurement of digital signature till the last date of filing of return of income for assessment year 2011 – 12. Hence the handicap expressed by the learned authorised representative in procuring the digital signature is not found convincing. 25. The reliance of the learned AR on the provisions of Section 292B is also found misplaced. In my considered opinion, Section 292B is helpful to such a return of income by mistakes, defects or omission are of such a nature that the substance and effect is in conformity with the intent and purposes of the IT act. Once, the intent of the IT act is very clear that the return of income for the year Under consideration are mandatory required to be filed electronically with digital signature by a firm, filing of such return of income manually cannot be said to be a curable mistake or defect. In the case of CIT versus Harjinder Kaur (2009) 180 taxman 23 (P&H), honourable High Court has held that where return of income filed by the assessee was neither signed by her, nor was it verified in terms of mandate of Section 140, such glaring inherent defect could not be cured in spite of deeming effect of Section 292B. In the instant case too, Section 139 (1) clearly specifies that the return of income in the case of has to be filed in accordance with rule 12 (3) (aaa) i.e. electronically with digital signature, non-compliance of this requirement of the act and the corresponding rule cannot be cured by the deeming effect of Section 292B as held by Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the above- mentioned case. 26. The learned AR’s reliance upon the board circular number 14 (XL – 35) of 1955, dated 11/4/1955 is also of no help to the appellant case as the appellant has failed in filing a valid return for the year Under consideration. Hence, no benefit can be provided in the light of the aforesaid board circular. The learned that AR is also relied upon the decision of luxury goods retail private limited versus DCIT in ITA number 3508/M/2016 (assessment year 2011 – 12). I find the facts of this case is different from the case Under consideration. In the case of luxury goods retail private limited, the assessee could not file the return electronically u/s 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act and Page | 10 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 therefore the return was filed manually within the due date. Honourable tribunal after appreciation of the facts of the case held that there is a justifiable reason for nonfiling of return electronically and hence the benefit of set-off of and carry forward of losses should be allowed based on the manual return filed. However, in the instant case there was no such technical difficulty with the appellant in uploading the return. No digital signature was procured in spite of clear mandate in the act/rule and there was no difficulty in procuring the same by any of the partners, being directors of seven companies. Moreover, as per the decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harjinder Kaur (supra), such returns are to be treated as invalid returns and not curable by the deeming effect of Section 292B. It appears that the said decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court was not brought to the notice of honourable tribunal at the time of arguing the case of luxury goods retail private limited which is directly on this point and by a superior authority. 27, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the issues involved, it is very clear that the manual return filed by the appellant for the year Under consideration is non-est , as if the return does not exist or an invalid return.” 011. Further as there is no valid return under section 139(1) of the Act, he also confirmed disallowance of deduction under section 80IB (10) of the Act. He held that :- “28. The next issue for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of ₹ 521,831,943/–. The AO has denied the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80 IB in view of the conditions laid down u/s 80 AC that the assessee was required to file a valid return Under the provisions of Section 139 (1) of the IT act. The AO is also relied upon the decision in the case of Dwarkadas G Panchmatya versus ACIT in ITA number 4727/M/2012 dated 30/1/2015. In the that decision honourable tribunal has held that deduction Under Section 80 IB shall not be allowed to the assessee unless he fights the return of income on or before the due date specified u/s 139 (1). Since, in this case no valid return of income was filed u/s 139 (1), the AO rejected the claim of the appellant u/s 80 IB. 29. On the other hand the learned AR argued the issue. The main points emerge from his arguments are- i. the return of income filed by the appellant cannot be treated as invalid and therefore deduction claimed u/s 80 IB is correct. Page | 11 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 ii. Even though the return is filed manually, claim of deduction u/s 80 IB needs to be allowed. The provisions of Section 80 AC are directory in nature and not mandatory. Merely for the technical reasons if the return of income is not file as per the provisions of Section 139 (1) but the same is filed within due date and also all the documents relevant to the claim are also filed within the due date then the deduction u/s 80 IB needs to be allowed. iii. The AR of the appellant has placed reliance on the following decision viz Hansa Dalakoti V ACIT (2012) 32 CCH 211 (del) (tribunal)/20 12/ 50 SOT 511 (Delhi), ITO versus S Venkatiaaah (2012) 32 CCH 386, vanshee Builders and developers ITA number 386/bng/2012 and CIT versus Ramco international 180 Taxman 584 Punjab and Haryana. He also distinguished the decision of Dwarkadas G Panchmatiya versus ACIT (supra) iv. for assessment year 2010 – 11 to assessment year 2014 – 15 deduction u/s 80 IB was claimed and same were allowed to the appellant 30. It has been extensively discussed in the preceding paragraph that the manual return filed by the appellant for the year under consideration is non- est, as if the return does not exist or an invalid return. Therefore, the appellant‟s claim of deduction u/s 80 IB is clearly hit by the provisions of Section 80 AC. Once the manual return filed as been treated by the Department as non- est, there remains no strength in the argument of the learned that AR that the firm filed return of income within due date and also the documents relevant to the claim are also filed within due date. The Department did not take cognizance of the manual return filed with the ACIT, Central Circle and that was the reason that no intimation regarding filing of the return and its processing u/s 143 (1) of the IT act was received by the appellant. 31. The claim of the learned AR that the provisions of Section 80 of The Act is directory in nature are not mandatory is also not correct in view of the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Unique shelters private limited versus Union of India (2013) 37 taxmann.com 338. The honourable High Court did not interfere with the observation of the AO that there is a strict applicability of Section 80 AC insofar as it relates to filing of return u/s 139 (1) for claiming deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the IT act. Accordingly, it was held that delay in filing of return of claim u/s 80 IB relief can only be condoned by CBDT. Page | 12 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 32. I have also carefully perused the various judgments relied upon by the appellant and find this distinguishable on facts. All these cases, there were valid returns of income filed for claim of deduction Under chapter VI A. However, in the instant case, as held in the preceding paragraphs, there is no valid return filed for the year Under consideration for such claim of deduction u/s 80 IB. The same time, the reliance of the AO on the decision of honourable Mumbai tribunal in the case of Dwarkadas G Panchmatiya versus ACIT (supra) is in order. 33. Finally, there is no merit in the argument of the learned AR that just because in the preceding and succeeding years, deduction has been allowed to the appellant, the same should be allowed for the instant year too. Each year being a separate assessment year, the appellant is required to fulfill the conditions laid down in various provisions of the income tax act for each assessment year. If the appellant has not fulfilled conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80 IB for assessment year 2011 – 12, it will not be allowed so, notwithstanding the deduction being allowed in the preceding years order in the succeeding years. 34. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the issue involved in my considered opinion that appellant is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80 IB for the year Under consideration i.e. assessment year 2011 – 12. Hence, the grounds of appeal number 1, 2 and 4 dismissed.” 012. With respect to the addition of bogus purchases, he confirmed the addition for reason that assessee failed to produce the relevant particulars for purchase of goods and production of suppliers before the learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/S. Kachwala Gems Vs. JCIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del). Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Assessee is aggrieved with that has preferred this appeal. 013. The learned Authorized Representative as per grounds no. 1 and 2 of the appeal challenged the reopening of the assessment. He submitted that the case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny Page | 13 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 for Assessment Year 2011-12, however, reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22nd April, 2014. Therefore, the reopening is within 4 years. He referred to the reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer and stated the learned Assessing Officer has noted that no return of income is filed despite return of income was filed manually. He further noted that learned Assessing Officer has noted that assessee has purchase transactions amounting to ₹9,80,300/- with five different parties who are engaged in providing bills without actual delivery of materials. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has stated that the above information is received by him but there is no such information or its source is revealed by making reference to the communication and manner of receipt of information. Therefore, he stated that the learned Assessing Officer does not have any information available with him but has merely reopened the assessment without any tangible material. He further submitted that there are discrepancies in information with respect to names of the parties as well as amount. He stated that there are enough evidences of receipt of material with respect to purchases transaction of all the 5 parties. He referred to Page No. 76 of the Paper Book, where the bill of purchase of material from M/s PK Trading is produced amounting to ₹51,063/-. However, in the reasons recorded by the learned Assessing Officer amount mentioned is only ₹49,163/-. He therefore submitted that information received by the learned Assessing Officer is vague. He further referred that assessee purchase material from that party of ₹51,640/- and which was paid by account payee cheque of the same account. He referred to the bank statement of the assessee to show the above payments and further referred to delivery challans, material receipt note of the above material. He further stated that the learned Assessing Officer stated a purchase of ₹1,15,148/- being bogus from M/s RB Enterprises and for this proposition he referred to the invoice dated Page | 14 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 15 November 2010, at page no. 83 and 84 of the Paper Book. He submitted that the bill itself shows material, delivery challans with date, lorry receipt numbers, quantity and the rate; quantity check and quality check report. The amount of consideration is paid by cheques and is supported with delivery challans etc. Similar details were also shown for purchase of ₹2,65,054/- from M/s Dinesh Trading Company and M/s Deep Traders for ₹31,185/-. He further stated that for purchase of ₹5,19,750/- The learned Assessing Officer is not aware that whether the purchases are from M/s Maruti Enterprises or M/s Apex Corporation. He stated that assessee has purchased material from Apex Corporation, which is supported by delivery challans, receipt of material, as well as the payments by cheque. He further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer is not aware about the amount of purchase as well as the parties from whom the goods have been purchased. He therefore submitted that the information received by the learned Assessing Officer did not have any source and information is vague. He further stated that the learned Assessing Officer did not make any inquiry prior to issue of notice for reopening. He therefore claimed that reopening has been made without any tangible material, non-application of mind and in absence of any adequate inquiry. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) (HC) and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 1940/2017 dated 29 January 2020. He also referred to the decision of co-ordinate Bench in that case dated 27 September 2017 stating that the facts were identical. He submitted that the learned CIT (A) has also wrongly confirmed the reopening of the assessment stating that the information received from Sales Tax Department. He submitted that there is a contradiction between the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and finding of the learned CIT (A). He submitted that the learned Assessing Officer in reasons recorded has Page | 15 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 stated that information has been received from „DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai‟, whereas, learned CIT (A) in Para no. 12 has wrongly referred to the issue that the information has been received from „Sales Tax Department and DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai‟. He therefore, stated that there is no reference of any information received from the Sales Department. In view of this, he submitted that reopening of the assessee deserves to be quashed on this ground itself. 014. On the issue of merits of the case referring to grounds no. 3 and 4, he stated that the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB was not part of the reasons recorded. Therefore, if the assessee succeeds on grounds no. 1 and 2, or on ground no 5 , grounds no. 3 and 4 become academic. 015. He stated that assessee has challenged the addition of ₹9,80,300/- made under section 69C of the Act. If assessee succeeds on ground no. 5 even then, grounds no. 3 & 4 do not survive for the reason that reopening has been made for only one ground of addition under section 69C of the Act of ₹9,80,300/- and if the same does not survive no other addition can be made. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Jet Airways. 016. He also relied on the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT that even if the addition is deleted in any appellate proceedings on the issue on which reopening is made, and then other additions which are not part of reasons for reopening do not survive. He referred to the decision in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawade vs. ITO (200 TTD 1017). 017. Even otherwise on the merits, he submitted that assessee filed manual return of income, as on that date the digital signature of the Director could not be affixed because of peculiar reasons. It was Page | 16 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 further stated that deduction under section 80IB (10) is allowed to the assessee for all earlier years in its entirety by passing orders under section 143(3) of the Act. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. in ITA No. 60 of 2013, wherein return filed in old format was considered as valid as assessee has not sought to gain any unfair advantage in the matter. He therefore submitted that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act which is allowed to assessee consistently in past years and therefore there is no reason to disallow the same merely because assessee filed manual return instead of electronic return. 018. The learned DR submitted that there is no infirmity found in the reopening of the assessment as information was available with the learned assessing officer that assessee has booked purchases without receipt of material. This information was received from the director general of income tax (investigation). As the assessee has not filed any return of income electronically which was mandatory to be filed at that particular time, the learned assessing officer was having a belief that income of assessee has escaped assessment. The information received from director general of income tax, investigation, Mumbai is a tangible material. In absence of any return of income, no further enquiry was required to be made. Therefore, there is no infirmity in action of the learned assessing officer in reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the act. He further submitted that merely there is a difference in small amount and in name of the some of the parties, reopening cannot be said to be invalid. He further submitted that when the assessment is reopened, the whole assessment is open before the assessing officer and he can make any further addition more adjustment to the income of the assessee. Hence, according to him there is no infirmity in disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the act. On the merits of addition of bogus purchase, he submitted that assessee has failed to Page | 17 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 produce the parties before the learned assessing officer and therefore the purchases are not proved to be genuine and hence addition u/s 69C has correctly been made. He further submitted that assessee has claimed to file the return of income manually, which was not permitted at that particular time, the return of the assessee is treated as invalid. Therefore, is no valid return lies in the eyes of the law, the learned that AO has correctly held that assessee has not filed any return of income. For the purpose of claim of any deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the act, assessee should have filed its return of income in time, which has not been filed, therefore the deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the act has been correctly denied to the assessee. He further stated that all the decisions cited by the learned authorised representative are distinguishable on facts and in none of the case, the facts are similar to that of the assessee. In all judicial precedents cited, assessee has filed its return of income. Therefore, there cannot be applied to the facts of the case. In view of this, he supported the orders of the lower authorities. 019. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the paper book containing 143 pages filed by the learned authorised representative as well as case law compilation where nine decisions have been cited. 020. Facts as available on record shows that the learned assessing officer has reopened the assessment by recording following reasons:- “Reasons Recorded For Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 M/s Suraksha D B Realty [ABOFS0694R] AY 2011 – 12 In this case, no return of income was filed to date. Information has now been received from DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai, that the assessee is Page | 18 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 involved in bogus purchase transactions amounting to ₹ 980,300/– with the following parties during the relevant previous year. PK trading Co 49,163 Deep Traders 31,185 RB enterprises 1,15,148 Dinesh trading Co 2,65,054 Maruti enterprises/ Apex Corporation 5,19,750 9,80,300 The above parties are involved in providing bench without actual delivery of material as per the information received. In view of this, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of ₹ 980,300/– has escaped assessment in a by 2011 – 12 within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act.‟ 021. On careful perusal of the above reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer, we find that as he could not find any return of income filed by the assessee in ITD system, there was no question of making further inquiries. It is an admitted fact that assessee has not filed any return of income electronically. It was mandatory at that time. Therefore, the learned assessing officer was of a reasonable belief that assessee has booked bogus purchases of ₹ 980,300/– during the year. As there was no information available about the details of the payment made by the assessee, recording of those transactions in the books of the assessee and any further information about the income of the assessee, no fault can be found in reopening of the assessment. 022. Merely some difference in mentioning of the amount, when the name of the party is mentioned correctly does not make the reopening of the assessment invalid. Further with respect to the claim of the Page | 19 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 assessee that whether the goods have been purchased from Maruti enterprises or Apex Corporation, the learned assessing officer has mentioned both the names. Therefore, it does not invalidate the reopening of the assessment. 023. The learned authorised representative has relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus G & G Pharma India Ltd 384 ITR 147 to submit that prior to forming of reason to believe that income has escaped assessment there has to be a proper application of mind by the assessing officer. According to the decision, the learned assessing officer should have applied his mind to the materials produced to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Carefully reading the facts of that case it is evident that the return of income in that particular case was assessed u/s 143 (3) of the income tax act 1961. Therefore, the learned assessing officer was having the original return of income as well as the material produced during the course of assessment proceedings before him. Further in that case the learned assessing officer has categorically stated before honourable high court that the material could not be located on basis of which the learned assessing officer has formed his opinion regarding reopening of the assessment. These facts are evident at Placitum 6 at page number 150 in first paragraph itself. Therefore, reliance on this decision does not help the case of the assessee. 024. Assessee further relied upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Vaman international private limited versus DCIT in ITA number 1040/M/2017 dated 27/9/2017, which has also been upheld by the honourable Bombay High Court in ITA number 1940 of 2017 dated 29/1/2020. We have carefully perused the facts of that particular case wherein also the reasons recorded at paragraph number 9 at page number 15 clearly shows that assessee has filed its return of Page | 20 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 income which was processed u/s 143 (1) of the act. Therefore, the coordinate bench held that that mere reference to the material in reason to believe cannot be said to be a bona fide belief by the AO that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. However, in the present case in absence of any return of income available in ITD, ratio of that decision cannot be applied, as facts are distinguishable. 025. In view of above facts, we are of the view that the learned assessing officer had valid „reason to believe‟ that income of the assessee has escaped assessment when a specific information in the form of „tangible material‟ received from DGIT investigation that assessee has obtained only bills without material from different parties amounting to ₹ 980,300/–. Therefore, we confirm the order of the learned CIT – A in upholding the reopening of the assessment. Ground number 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 026. Coming to ground number 5 where the addition of ₹ 980,300/– is made u/s 69C of the income tax act is challenged, we find that assessee has submitted as per letter dated 19/11/2015 before the learned assessing officer, detailed note on standard operating procedure in respect of purchases. Assessee is also stated that it is engaged in the business of real estate development. Assessee has also produced the invoices of purchase of goods from each of the parties, their ledger accounts from the books of accounts of the assessee, bank statement of assessee showing payment made to different parties, delivery challans and material receipt note of goods received from those parties. On verification of the delivery notes it is found that the material received has been certified by the project engineer, Chief engineer and quality checked by the assessee. In material receipt note, there is a reference of lorry number and the date of receipt of material. Therefore it is apparent that assessee has produced all the details available with it to show that the goods have been purchased from those parties, debt due to them is Page | 21 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 discharged by account payee cheques , material has been received by the assessee, mode of receipt of the material is also mentioned, quantity and quality of which has also been verified by engineers of the assessee. The learned assessing officer has made the addition only because of the reason that assessee has not produced the parties/suppliers. When assessee was asked to furnish the correct and current address of the suppliers for making necessary enquiries, assessee stated that they are not available on the addresses mentioned in the purchase bills and expressed its inability to produce the suppliers for verification. The learned assessing officer has also relied upon the statement recorded of the key persons of the said parties before the sales tax Department Mumbai wherein they have denied to have made any genuine sales to their customers. The learned AO thus, heavily relied on the confession in the statement recorded on oath before the sales tax authorities by those suppliers. The assessee has categorically stated that assessee has not been given any of the copies of such statement on which learned that AO relied upon i.e. statement of those persons before the sales tax Department. The learned CIT – A confirmed the addition that assessee did not possess vital third party evidences with respect to supply of goods. We find that the above finding of the learned CIT – A is devoid of any merit as assessee has produced adequate information about receipt of goods, which remains uncontroverted. It appears that 027. Identical issue arose before the honourable Bombay High Court in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus Shapporjii Pallonji and Co Ltd (2020) 423 ITR 220 (Bom) wherein the information was received from sales tax Department, government of Maharashtra that two parties had not actually sold any material to the assessee. In response to the very of the learned assessing officer, copies of the bills and entries made in books of accounts relating to such purchases were produced. However, the learned Page | 22 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 assessing officer made the addition holding that there was no actual purchase of goods by the assessee. When the matter reached before the coordinate bench, the addition was deleted. When the matter reached before the honourable High Court, the order of the coordinate bench was confirmed. The honourable High Court in paragraph number 18 has held as Under:- “ Thus, we find that according to the tribunal the assessing officer has merely relied upon the information received from the sales tax Department, government of Maharashtra without carrying out any independent enquiry. The tribunal had recorded a finding that the assessing officer had failed to show that the purchase material were bogus and held that there was no justification to doubt the genuineness of the purchases made by the respondent assessee. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the tribunal. Merely on suspicion based on information received from another authority, the assessing officer ought not to have made the additions without carrying out independent enquiry and without affording due opportunity to the respondent assessee to controvert the statements made by the seller‟s before the other authority. Accordingly, we do not find any good ground to entertain this question for consideration as well.” 028. The question arises that as assessee has failed to furnish the correct and current interest of the suppliers for making necessary enquiries by the learned assessing officer, failure of the assessee to produce this parties could be fatal and deserves an addition or not. We find that the learned assessing officer has recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment on the basis of specific information that 5 different parties have provided bogus bills to the assessee, he has also the information that those parties have given their statement that they are non genuine suppliers, the information is also travelled to the DGIT investigation to the learned assessing officer, therefore, it is evident that assessing officer was having information about those parties such as their address and whereabouts. Therefore when the AO was having complete information about those parties and was so sure that those are the bogus parties and has merely provided the Page | 23 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 bills without supply of the material and also having information about making a statement before a government authority, not providing the correct address by the assessee, assessee was not having the same, is not fatal to the issue. The learned assessing officer himself made any enquiry with those parties further with respect to genuineness of purchase of material by the assessee. 029. As the learned assessing officer was having the complete details about these suppliers, he should have made some enquiry with the suppliers about mentioning of the lorry receipts etc. in the invoices. The learned assessing officer has not carried out any independent enquiry. The assessee has so far produced all possible available details with respect to receipt of material. Undoubtedly, no confirmation is available with the assessee of the five parties, but the signature on the bills wherein the complete material is available and receipt of payment by cheque itself shows are third-party confirmation of the transaction at least with respect to purchase of these goods. As far as the records maintained by the godown keeper, the Chief engineer and site engineer of the assessee has certified receipt of goods. Further we find that in paragraph number 43 of the order of the learned CIT – A where he has mentioned nine different evidences for which the addition is made by the learned assessing officer, we find that the learned assessing officer is not at all referred to failure of the assessee in producing any of these nine evidences. The only allegation of the assessing officer is that assessee has failed to show receipt of goods as well as failed to produce those parties. Furthermore, looking to the nature of the business, assessee cannot be asked to produce more details then what is generally kept by an assessee in that line of the business. 030. Identical issue also arose in case of ACIT versus Mahesh K Shah ITA number 5194/M/2014 dated 31/1/2017 wherein even the addresses were given and 133 (6) inquiries were made by the learned assessing Page | 24 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 officer which remained unresponded, the coordinate bench has deleted addition of unaccounted purchases holding that the AO cannot make the addition u/s 69C of the act by merely relying on information obtained from the sales tax Department, the statements, affidavits of third parties without the assessee being afforded any opportunity of cross-examination of those persons for non-response to information called for u/s 133 (6) of the act. It is also an admitted fact that the learned assessing officer has not confronted assessee with statements of those parties/suppliers made before the sense tax authorities. 031. In view of these facts, the addition made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT – A cannot be upheld. Accordingly, ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed and the learned assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 980,300/– made u/s 69C of the act with respect to purchases from five different parties. 032. Now it is apparent that only issue in the reasons for reopening of the assessment was with respect to alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 980,300/–, This addition has been deleted by us for the reasons given hereinabove, whether any other disallowance, which was not part of the reasons for reopening of the assessment, can be made by the learned assessing officer or not. The issue also arises that the addition for which the assessment was reopened has been made by the learned assessing officer, confirmed by the learned CIT – A and deleted by the tribunal, even then such other additions/disallowances which were not part of reasons of the reopening of the assessment, can be upheld or not. 033. This issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawade V ITO (200 TTJ 1017) dated 9/05/2019. The coordinate bench in that case followed the decision Page | 25 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Jet Airways Ltd (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and CIT versus Cheil communications India private limited (2013) 354 ITR 549 (del). In that particular case the learned assessing officer initiated reassessment proceedings with respect to an escapement of income of Rs 4 lakhs. In the assessment the addition of ₹ 4 lakhs were paid and also apart from that another addition was made to the extent of 15% amounting to ₹ 81,405/– the additions were confirmed by the learned CIT – A. The coordinate bench deleted the addition of ₹ 4 lakhs. When the issue of disallowance of ₹ 81,405/– arose before the coordinate bench it held that that the only addition made by the learned AO out of the recorded reasons stands deleted i.e. ₹ 4 lakhs. Therefore the addition of ₹ 81,405/– was not at all part of the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer, cannot be sustained for the reason that since, the sole addition made by the AO on the foundation of the recorded reasons has not passed the judicial scrutiny by the tribunal, therefore, there can be no question of making any other addition to the income. Accordingly, without considering the merits of disallowance of ₹ 81,405/– the coordinate bench held that the other addition, which was not part of the reasons of reopening, could not be sustained. The coordinate bench held as Under:- “5. The only other ground on merits is against the confirmation of ad hoc addition of Rs.81,405/-. Apart from this, the assessee has also challenged the initiation of re-assessment proceedings by the AO. It can be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO that he took up the re-assessment proceedings on account of excess capital balance of Rs.4.00 lakh and also Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) detailing undisclosed investment made by the assessee in certain properties. However, the assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.4.00 lakh and further disallowance of Rs.81,405/- out of expenses. No addition was made towards excess investments given in the TEP. We have deleted the addition of Rs.4.00 lakh in an earlier para by holding the same as not sustainable for the year under consideration. Page | 26 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 6. Section 147 of the Act provides that: “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section...‟. A bare perusal of the above provision manifests that the AO is fully empowered to bring to tax any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 147, apart from the income escaping assessment on which the AO formed reason to believe about the escapement of income and issued notice u/s 148. The use of words „and' between the income escaping assessment forming reasons to believe for issuing notice u/s 148 and other income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment and comes to the notice of the AO in the course of the proceeding, amply shows that the existence of the former is a pre-condition for taxing the latter. To put it simply, if the grounds set out in the re- assessment notice are non-existent, i.e., either no addition is made on such grounds or the addition so made does not finally pass the scrutiny by the appellate forums, then, obviously, no further addition can be made for income which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings u/s 147. Without there being such a deterrent, the AO could have got unhindered powers to initiate re-assessment at the drop of a hat without any legally sustainable reasons and then made other additions resulting in multiplicity of proceedings, which the legislature has sought to curb. Any lawful jurisdiction to make addition on account of other incomes coming to the notice of the AO during the course of proceedings u/s 147 can be acquired only on the foundation of a validly acquired jurisdiction on legally sustainable items of income escaping assessment-forming reasons for issuing notice u/s 148. In other words, if the AO fails to acquire a valid jurisdiction to make re-assessment on the basis of his reasons, then, he is also debarred for making additions for other incomes chargeable to tax which escaped assessment and come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 147. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) has held to this extent. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Chiel Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 549 (Del). 7. When we test the facts of the instant case on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove, it turns out that the only addition made by the AO out of the recorded reasons stands deleted. In view of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Jet Airways (supra), we order to delete the addition of Rs.81,405/-, since the sole addition made Page | 27 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 by the AO on the foundation of the recorded reasons has not passed the judicial scrutiny by the Tribunal in an earlier para. Thus, there can be no question of making any other addition to the income. We, therefore, hold that the initiation of reassessment was bad in law. Such initiation as well as the further proceedings are, therefore, set aside. Ex consequenti, we order to delete the addition of Rs.81,405/-.” 034. In view of the fact that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment with respect to disallowance/addition u/s 69C of the act of ₹ 980,300/– has already been deleted no other disallowance, which are not part of the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer, has any legs to stand, but fails. Therefore, without going into the merits of the disallowance u/s 80 IB of the act vis-à-vis filing of the return by the assessee u/s 139 (1) of the act the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80 IB (10) cannot be disallowed. 035. Even otherwise, the fact shows that assessee has consistently been allowed deduction u/s 80 IB (10) in earlier assessment years as well as subsequent assessment years. For peculiar reasons, assessee could not file electronic return of income but has filed manual return of income within time allowed u/s 139 (1) of the act. 036. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we hold that the disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the act made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT – A is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, ground number 3 and 4 of the appeal are allowed. 037. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.09.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 08.09.2022 Page | 28 ITA No. 482/Mum/2018 Sureaksha DB Realty; AY 11-12 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai