DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI V. OM SAGAR ENGINEERING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4861/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0094 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTALDR
• Keywords: Valuation report
• Section: 133(6); 68; 6; 56

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -CBENCH MUMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./4861/MUM/2016, / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DCIT RANGE-1 (2)(2) ROOM NO.535, 5 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. OM SAGAR ENGINEERING PVT.LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, TAJ BUILDING, DR. D.N. ROAD,FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN:AAACO 0436 D ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJAT MITTAL-DR /ASSESSEE BY: DR K. SIVARAM/SHRI ADITYA AJGAONKAR / DATE OF HEARING: 07/02/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/03/2018 , / PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 22/04//2016 OF CIT(A)-2 , MUMBAI THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTU- RE AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME ON 07/09/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2.97CRORES.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/ S.143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 09/01/ 2015,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 5.94 CRORES. 2. SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE.DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED PREMIUM MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.2.97 CRORES AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DETAILS I N THAT REGARD AND TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE SHARE PREMIUM WAS DETERMINED, THAT IT HAD ISSUED 30 00 EQUITY SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF 100 EACH AT THE PREMIUM OF RS.9,900/- THAT IT RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2.97 CRORES.HE OBSERVED THAT THE BOOK VALUE AS ON 3 1/03/11 WAS RS.1000/- AND PREMIUM WAS CHARGED AT RS.9,900/-,THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT J USTIFY RECEIVING SUCH A HUGE SHARE APPLICA - TION MONEY AT HIGH PREMIUM,THAT THE BOOK VALUE OF S HARES OF THE COMPANY WAS VERY NEGLIGIB -LE,THAT NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD INVEST IN SUC H LOSS MAKING COMPANIES,THAT EARNING PER SHARE AS ON31/03/2011WAS VERY MUCH BELOW THE SHARE PURCHASE PRICE.INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT,HE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE SU M OF RS.2.97CRORES RECEIVED FROM THE SUBSCRIBERS BY THE ASSESSEE AT PREMIUM WAS LIABLE T O BE DISALLOWED. HE ALSO MENTIONED THE INSERTION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B). 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) AND MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL HE 4816/M/16 OM SAGAR ENGINEERING P.LTD. 2 HELD THAT THE AO HAD NOT GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THAT AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT THE VALUE OF EACH EQUITY SHARE WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.74,136/-,THAT ON 05/05/2 015 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED VALUATION REPORT. AFTER GOI NG THROUGH THE AUDITED ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2010 AND 31/03/2011 RESPEC TIVELY, STATED THAT NO LOSS WAS INCURRED BY COMPANIES AS ALLEGED BY AO, THAT THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE RECEIPT OF MONEY AND ITS SOURCES THEREOF, THAT HE HAD OBJECTED TO CHARGING P REMIUM MONEY, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VALUATION REPORT FOR IT S EQUITY SHARES, THAT AS PER THE REPORT, VALUE OF EACH EQUITY SHARE WORKED OUT TO RS.74,136/- AS ON 31/03/2010 .HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GREEN INFRA L TD. ITA/7762/MUM/2012 DATED 23/8/13 AND HELD THAT ADDITION MADE BY AO WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE AO AND STATED THAT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT PROVED,THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TALKED ABOUT NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, THAT THE PREMIUMS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ABNORMAL, THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD OBTAINED VALUTION REPORT FROM AN AUTHORISED PERSON,THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE EXISTING DIRECTORS MEETING,THAT THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER-TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS.4,24, 69,844/-,THAT EPS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 44,234/-, THAT IT HAD CHARGED PREMIUM OF RS. 10, 000/-PER SHARE. HE REFERRED TO PAGE NUMBER 18 OF TH E PAPER BOOK AND RELIED UPON THE CASES OF GREEEN INFRA LTD.(145 ITD 240) AND GREEEN INFRA LTD .(392 ITR 7). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SHARE PREMIUM MONEY AT THE RA TE OF 10,000/-PER SHARE,THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2.97 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT,THAT IT HAD OBTAINED A VALUAT ION REPORT FROM A CA ABOUT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES,THAT THE EARNING PER SHARE OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS MORE THAN RS. 40,000/-THAT IT HAD CHARGED PREMIUM OF RS.10,000/-ONLY PER SHARE, THAT THE EXISTING DIRECTOR SAID PURCHASE THE SHARES. IN OUR OPINION, ONCE A VALUATION REPORT THI S OPTED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM A PROFESSIONAL IT HAS TO BE GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE,UNTIL AND UNLESS IT I S PROVED THAT SAME WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT OR WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD.IT HAD CHARGED 1/4 TH PREMIUM,AS COMPARED TO THE EARNING PER SHARE. HERE,WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE MATTER OF GREEN INFRA LTD.(SUPRA)DELIVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER: 4816/M/16 OM SAGAR ENGINEERING P.LTD. 3 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON R ECORD IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. THE ENTIRE DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND THE CHARGING OF SHAR E PREMIUM OF RS. 490/- PER SHARE ON A BOOK VALUE OF RS. 10/- EACH. THIS DISPUTE IS MORE S O BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IT IS BEYOND ANY LOGICAL REASO NING THAT A COMPANY WITH ZERO BALANCE SHEET COULD GARNER RS. 490/-PER SHARE PREMIUM FROM ITS SUBSCRIBERS. SUCH TRANSACTION MAY RAISE EYEBROWS BUT CONSIDERING THE SUBSCRIBERS TO T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE TEST FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION GOES INTO OBLIVION. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT 10,19,000 EQUITY SHARES HA S BEEN SUBSCRIBED AND ALLOTTED TO IDFC PE FUND-II WHICH COMPANY IS A FRONT MANAGER OF IDFC LTD., IN WHICH COMPANY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS HOLDING 18% OF SHARES. THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE IDFC PE FUND-II WHO IS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE CAPITAL, ARE LIC , UNION OF INDIA, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND CANARA BANK WHIC H ARE ALL PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. THEREFORE, TO RAISE EYEBROWS TO A TRA NSACTION WHERE THERE IS SO MUCH OF INVOLVEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTL Y DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. 10.1 NO DOUBT A NON-EST COMPANY OR A ZERO BALANCE C OMPANY ASKING FOR A SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 490/- PER SHARE DEFIES ALL COMMERCIAL PRUDENCE BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT IT IS A PREROGATIVE OF THE BOARD OF DIREC TORS OF A COMPANY TO DECIDE THE PREMIUM AMOUNT AND IT IS THE WISDOM OF THE SHARE HOLDERS WH ETHER THEY WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO SUCH A HEAVY PREMIUM. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT QUEST ION THE CHARGING OF SUCH OF HUGE PREMIUM WITHOUT ANY BAR FROM ANY LEGISLATED LAW OF THE LAND. DETAILS OF SUBSCRIBERS WERE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE AO HAS ALSO CON FIRMED THE TRANSACTION FROM THE SUBSCRIBERS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE AC T. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONTAINS PERSONS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IDFC GROUP OF COMPANIES, TH EREFORE THEIR INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RAISED AN ALTOGETHER PLEA BY STATING THAT THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION SHOULD ALSO BE JUDGED WIT HIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THIS BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE ALLOWED THE DR TO RAISE THIS ISSUE. FOR TH IS, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHR IMAL V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451/7 TAXMAN 6, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAI D DOWN THE RATIO THAT 'IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS T HE JURISDICTION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, IF NECESSARY, APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE AUTHORITY AGAINST WHO SE DECISION THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED TO DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MATTER A FRESH, UNLESS FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO BY STATUTE.' 11.1 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR IN T HE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RATIO, LET US TEST THE TRANSACTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 68 THE INITIAL ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER OR THE DEPOSITOR. THE SUBSCR IBERS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL ARE ALL COMPANIES. THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HA VE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IDENTITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS NOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE QUESTIONED THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE HOLDERS. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION CAN ALSO BE SAFELY C ONCLUDED SINCE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DONE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS DULY RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DULY REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BANK STATEMENT IS EXHIBITED AT PAGES 101 AND 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES ARE DULY REFLECTED . IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE CAPACITY OF THE SHARE HOLDERS CANNOT BE DOUBTED AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ELSEWHERE IN OUR ORDER THAT 98% OF THE SHARE IS HELD BY IDFC PRIVATE EQUITY FUND-II WHICH IS A FRON T MANAGER OF IDFC LTD., AND THE CONTRIBUTORS IN IDFC PRIVATE EQUITY FUND-II ARE LIC , UNION OF INDIA, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND CANARA BANK WHIC H ARE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. 4816/M/16 OM SAGAR ENGINEERING P.LTD. 4 11.2 NOW THE ONLY POINT OF DISPUTE IS THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION WHICH ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS BEYOND ANY LOGICAL SENSE AND WHICH IS THE CHARGING OF SHARE PREMIUM AT THE RATE OF RS. 490/- PER SHARE. ACCORDING TO TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES THIS IS A SHAM TRANSACTION . SO FAR TILL NOW, WE HAVE SEEN AND EXA MINED THE SOURCES OF FUNDS. LET US SEE THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS AND WHO ARE THE ULTIMATE BENEF ICIARIES OF THIS SHARE PREMIUM WHICH MAY CLEAR THE CLOUDS OVER THE TRANSACTION ALLEGED TO BE A SHAM. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INVESTED FUNDS IN ITS THREE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIE S NAMELY (I) GREEN INFRA CORPORATE WIND LTD. (II) GREEN INFRA WIND ASSETS LTD AND (III) GRE EN INFRA WIND FARMS LTD., WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING 99.88% OF SHARE CAPITAL WHICH M EANS THAT THE FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DIVERTED TO AN OUTSIDER. THIS CLEARS THE DOUBT ABOU T THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPANY IN WHOM THE FUNDS HAVE B EEN INVESTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS HOLDING 99.88% OF SHARES AND IN TURN THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY'S 98% OF SHARES ARE HELD BY IDFC PE FUND-II, THIS ENTIRE SHARE HOLDING STRUCTUR E CANNOT BE SAID TO GENERATE ANY TRANSACTION WHICH COULD BE SAID TO BE SHAM. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE FROM ALL POSSIBLE ANGLES AND BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 56 OF THE ACT AND A T OUR STAGE WE HAVE GONE TO THE EXTENT OF TESTING THE TRANSACTION WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF SE CTION 68 OF THE ACT. WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE ENTIRE TRAN SACTION AS SHAM. OUR VIEW IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN AS EXPLAINED TO US AND AS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE SHARE HOLDERS IN ALL TH E RELATED TRANSACTION UNDER ISSUE ARE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD, IN OUR CONSIDERATE VIEW, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING THE SHAR E PREMIUM AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 56(1) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERATE VIEW, FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6 8 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 47,97,10,000/-. GROUND N O. 2 & 3 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT,CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,HELD AS UNDER: FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE DEPARTMENT RA ISED AN ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SHARE PREMIUM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD TO BE CHARGED TO TAX UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EX AMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 ON THE PARAMETERS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS T O THE SHARE CAPITAL, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CAPACITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL. IT FOUND THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE ISSUANCE O F NOTICES TO THEM UNDER SECTION 133(6) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IT ALSO HELD THAT THE DEPAR TMENT MADE NO GRIEVANCE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS. SO FAR AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTIONS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS WAS CONCERNED, IT HELD THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS WER E RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SHOWN IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE S INCE THE SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE DONE THROUGH BANKS AS EVIDENCED BY BANK STATEMENTS WHICH WERE EX AMINED BY IT. IN RESPECT OF THE CAPACITY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS, A FINDING WAS RECORDED BY IT TH AT 98 PER CENT. OF THE SHARES WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEES FUND MANAGER COMPANY WHOSE CONTRIBUT IONS WERE ALL BY PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS. IN RESPECT OF THE SUMS OF INTEREST EA RNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS FIXED DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS NOR WAS IT IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDIN G THE INTEREST WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AS BUSINESS INC OME AND RECLASSIFIED THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE THREE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE FOR A PERIOD OF 1 DAY, 28 DAYS AND 90 DAYS AND HELD THAT CONSIDERING THE N ATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INTEREST EARNED WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINES S INCOME.. . THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961COULD NOT BE INVOKED. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD EXAMINED THE CASE OF THE DEP ARTMENT ON THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 68 AND HAD FOUND ON FACTS THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS PERVERSE IN ANY MANNER. 4816/M/16 OM SAGAR ENGINEERING P.LTD. 5 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT OR DER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY.SO,UPHOLDING THE SAME,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO,STANDS DISMISSED. ! ' #$% &'( . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST MARCH,2018. &) * ' 01 &+ , 2018 SD/- SD/- ( / AMARJIT SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; * ' /DATED :01.03.2018. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.