INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4902/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3867 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABI RAMA KARTIKEYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH V SHAH; VIDHI DOSHI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4902 /MUM/201 7 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., C/O GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD., V.K.K. MENON MARG (SAHAR ROAD) , CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E AST ) MUMBAI 400 099 PAN: AAA CI 3492 H V. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE 2(2 )(1) R.NO. 545, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH V. SHAH & SHRI MS. VIDHI DOSHI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ABI RAMA KARTIK E YAN DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 .11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .01.2019 O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD (JM) 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)] DATED 19.04.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: - GROUND NO. I: DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS AND MAI NTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 ,1 6,56,956/ - 2 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5, MUMBAI ['THE CIT(A)'] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2(2)(1) ('THE AO') IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENAN CE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,16,56,956/ - ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE SAME ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENA NCE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,16,56,956/ - BE DELETED. GROUND NO. II: DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WRITE DOWN OF NON - MOVING MACHINERY SPAR ES AMOUNTING TO RS. 30, 03,207 / - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN M AKING ADDITION OF RS. 30,03,207/ - BEING PROVISION FOR NON - MOVING MACHINERY SPARES. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE PROVISION FOR WRITE DOWN OF NON - MOVING MACHINE SPARES IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND THEREFORE BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUC TION AM OUNTING TO RS. 30,03,207/ - . 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED VARIOUS EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENSES. ASSESSEE FURNISHED BREAKUP OF THE SAID EXPENSES OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF . 1,03,83,320/ - WAS SHOWN AS SPENT O N SHOP FLOOR EPU FLOOR ING AND . 12,73,636/ - WAS SHOWN AS SPEN T ON OPTIC FIBER CABL ING IN FACTORY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THESE EXPENSES AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAVING ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THESE EXPENSES ARE MEANT TO BE LONG LASTING UNLIKE REGULAR AND RECURRING REPAIRS. THEREFORE, HE TREA TED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., 4. THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE FOR THE REASON THAT THE OLD FLOOR WAS RELAYED WITH EPOXY FLOORING AND ITS LIFE SPAN IS ABOUT FIVE YEARS , LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE . REGARDING OPTIC FIBER CABLE LAYED IN FACTORY ALSO LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE S AME IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO ENDURING BENEFIT IN L AYING EPOXY FLOOR BY THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE FLOOR IN FACTORY PREMISES WAS VERY OLD AND IT WAS WORN OUT , THE FLOORING WAS REPLACED WITH EPOXY FLOORING AND IT IS ONLY A CURRENT REPAIR . RELIANCE IS PACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. (I) DCIT V. M/S IMPACT CONTAINERS PVT. LTD., (ITA.NO. 1597/MUM/2010) (II) MALABAR HILL CLUB LTD. V. DCIT (ITA.NO. 4507/MUM/2012) (III) M/S. UNIMAX LABORATORIES V. ACIT (ITA.NO.641/ASR/2014) (IV) ACIT V. NIPPON MOTORS CORPORATION (ITA.NO. 218/COCH/2015) 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE SHOP FLOOR EPOXY FLOORING IS BASICALLY A RESTORATION OF THE FACTORY OLD PLANT FLOORIN G , T HE AMOUNT EXPENDED IS TOWARDS REMOVAL OF EXISTING COATING AND APPLYING THE NEW ONE. IT IS ONLY A REPLACEMENT OF FLOORING AND SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE AS A LIABLE A R EVENUE EXPENDITURE ONLY . 4 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., 7. COMING TO OPTIC FIBER CABLE , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION S: - (I) CIT V. ANUSH SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD., (62 TAXMANN.COM 287) (II) CIT V . BARODA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD., (198 ITR 716) (III) DCIT V. SMT GEETA V. MEHTA (26 SOT 455) 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR REPLACING OF FLOOR WITH VI TRIFIED TILES, FALSE CEILING WORK, PROVISIONS OF WOODEN AND GLASS PARTITIONS, LIGHT FITTING S AND SANITARY WORK ETC., WERE CAP I TAL OR R EVENUE EXPENDITURE A ND THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS HELD THAT REPLAC ING OF FLOOR WITH VITRIFIED TILES, FALSE CEILING WORK, PROVISIONS OF WOODEN AND GLASS PARTITIONS, LIGHT FITTING S AND SANITARY WORK ETC., CONSTITUTE R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON OPTIC FIBER CABLING IS ONLY R EVENUE IN NATURE. 9. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISION RELIED ON, WE FIND THAT A N IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. NIPPON MOTORS CORPORATION (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE EPOXY COATING OF 5 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., THE FLOORING IN THE FACTORY WHETHER IS A CAPITAL OR R E VENUE EXPENDITURE. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER: 11. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF .20,00,140 FOR REPAIR OF WORKSHOP AND .22,79,510 FOR EPOXY COATING, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF .20,00,140/ - WAS EXPENDED FOR THE CURRENT RE PAIRS TO THE WORKSHOP I.E., PAINTING OF THE WORKSHOP FLOOR AND REPAIRS OF THE OPEN YARD AND LAWN. THE BENEFIT OBTAINABLE FORM THIS IS ONLY TEMPORARY AND THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS MORE EFFICIENTLY. REGARDING EPOXY COATING WHICH WAS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD AND GOT DAMAGED BY CONSTANT WEAR AND TEAR, IT HAS TO BE DONE PERIODICALLY TO FACILITATE A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT. THIS EXPENDITURE DID NOT CREATE ANY NEW ASSET OF ENDURING BENEFIT. 11. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA.NO. 8389 & 8467/MUM/2011 DATED 20.02.2013 FOR THE A.Y 2008 - 09, REPLACEMENT OF FL OORING WITH VITRIFIED TILES HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE R EVENUE EXPENDITURE OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 9. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,55,668/ - WAS INCURRED WITH THE RENOVATION INCLUDING FALSE CEILING, FLOORING. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THESE ARE THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO BASING ON THE LOGIC THA T THEY CONFER ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE BEING THE ONE INCURRED TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING ASSET AND NO NEW ASSET HAS COME INTO EXISTEN CE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GET ANY ENDURING BENEFIT, THE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. HE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,55,668/ - HAS INCURRED MAINLY FOR REPLACEMENT OF FLOOR WITH VI TRIFIED TILES, FALSE CEILING WORK, PROVISIONS OF WOODEN AND GLASS PARTITIONS, LIGHT FITTING AND SANITARY FITTING WORK ETC. THE EXPENDITURE IS MERELY A CASE OF TEMPORARY REPLACEMENTS / FABRICATIONS. THE CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF SUCH REPLACEMENTS AND HELD THAT THEY ARE NOT OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS DETAILED IN PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE AO. 11. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FILED A PAPER BOOK AND MENTIONED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR REPLA CEMENT OF TILES, PAINTING, FALSE CEILING PORTIONS ETC AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION, LD COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HI LINE PENS PVT. LTD. (306 ITR 182) (DEL). FURTHER, FOR TREATING THE EXPENDITURE INCU RRED ON FLOORING, PORTION, WIRING, PLUMBING, FALSE CEILING, ROOFING, ELECTRICAL WIRING ETC. LD COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISE VS. DOT (27 SOT 344) AS WELL AS DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF E SCORTS LTD. VS. AOT (104 ITD 427) (DEL). AS PER THE LD COUNSEL, THE DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DOT VS. P.U.R. PLOYURETHENE PRODUCTS PVT LTD. (64 TD 507) (DEL) SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE 6 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., ASSESSEE. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT IN TH E ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, COMPARABLE ISSUES CAME UP FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005 AND THE DECISION WAS GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PLANT AND MACHINERY, REPAIRS TO FACTORY BUILDING, OFFICE BUILDING CONSTITUTES R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO / CIT (A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS. CONS IDERING THE ABOVE VARIOUS CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPLACEMENT OF FLOOR WITH VITRIFIED TILES, FALSE CEILING WORK, PREVISION OF WOODEN AND GLASS PARTITIONS, LIGHT FITTING AND SANITARY FITTING WORK ET C CONSTITUTE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD HAS TO BE REVERSED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION , WE HOLD THAT THE REPLACING OF THE FLOORING BY THE ASSES SEE WITH EPOXY C OATING IS R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. 13. COMING TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON OPTIC FIBER CABL ING , WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE DCIT V. SMT GEETA V. MEHTA (SUPRA) THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD., V. CIT [124 ITR 1] & CIT V. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., [86 ITR NO. 549] HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY WAY OF PURCHASE OF TILES , GRILLS, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS ETC. ARE LIABLE U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOT A C APITAL EXPENDITURE, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 15. REGARDING THE TEST OF ENDURING ADVANTAGES, WE FIND THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ALL THE CASES OF EXPENDITURE WITH ENDURING BENEFITS ARE NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE. IT HAS EXCEPTIONS AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD V. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 AND THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT 'EVEN WHERE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR ENDURING BENEFIT, THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE UNLESS THE ADVANTAGE IS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. IF ADVANTAGE WAS MERELY FACILITATING ASSESSEE'S TRADING OPERATION OR ENABLING IT TO EFFICIENTLY OR MERE PROFITABLY RUN ITS BUSINESS, LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, THE EXPENDITURE WILL BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO ADDITION TO THE PROFIT M AKING APPARATUS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE POSITION TOGETHER WITH THE REPAIRS DONE TO THE CLASSROOMS HAS AN ENDURING ADVANTAGES, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FALL IN CAPITAL AREA OR NOT. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FINDING OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. [1972] 86 ITR 549 IS RELEVANT AND ACCORDINGLY, 'THE LINE THAT DIVIDES THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE FROM THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS OFTEN TIMES VERY THIN. IT WILL NOT BE CORR ECT TO SAY THAT BY AVOIDING CERTAIN BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, THE COMPANY CAN BE 7 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., SAID TO HAVE ACQUIRED ENDURING BENEFITS OR ACQUIRED ANY INCOME - YIELDING ASSET. THE PAYMENT TO REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A RECURRING DISADVANTAGE WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE.' FURTHER, IT ALSO SETTLED THAT EVERY CASE HAS TO BE SEEN INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE OR CAPITAL DEPENDING ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PROPOSITIONS OF THE APEX COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF PURCHASE OF TILES, GRILLS, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS, PLY, PLYWOOD, GRANITE, AND RELATED LABOUR CHARGES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE KEEPING THE CLASSROOMS FIT FOR USE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THUS, CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND IS DISMISSED. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON OPTIC FIBER CABL ING IS R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 15. COMING TO GROUND NO.2 I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF WRITE DOWN OF NON - MOVING MACHINERY SPARES, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEAR I.E. A .Y. 2011 - 12 THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT A .Y. 2012 - 13 MAY ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE BY SIMPLY FOLLOWING HIS EARLI ER ORDER FOR THE A .Y. 2011 - 12. 16. LD. DR HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 17. ON HEARING BOTH SIDES AND PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A .Y. 2011 - 12 AND THE TRIBUNAL SUBSEQUENTLY BY ORDER IN ITA.NO. 5186/MUM/2015 DATED 20.12.2017 RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE 8 ITA NO. 4902/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2012 - 13) M/S. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A .Y. 2011 - 12. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A .Y. 2011 - 12. THUS, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH JANUARY, 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 30 / 0 1/2019 GIRIDHAR , S R. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM