SUMER CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ASST CITCEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

ITA 495/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8918 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R MANJUNATHA SWAMY
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 271(1)(c); 80IB; 132; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM)& SHRI PAWAN SINGH ( JM) I.T.A. NO.495MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 220, COMMERCE HOUSE, 140, N.M. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023. PAN : AACFS4279F VS . ACIT CC - 3 6, R. NO. 11, GROUND FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI NISHIT GANDHI DEPARTMENT BY S HRI R. MANJUNATHA SWAMY DATE OF HEARING 2 7 . 11 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 . 1 2 . 201 8 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) :- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI CONFIRMIN G PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE DISCUSSED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING BUILDINGS. THE REVENUE CARRIED OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U /S. 132 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN GROUP CASES ON 23 .12.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS W ERE FOUND. WHEN THEY WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, H E AGREED TO OFFER THE SAME AS ITS INCOME. DETAILS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND IN THE INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ARE TABULATED BELOW:- M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 2 S. NO. INCOME DISCLOSED (RS.) PARTICULARS OF RELEVANT DOCUMENT NATURE OF TRANSACTION IN BRIEF RELEVANT PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE ISSUE DISCUSSED. 1. 33,99,27,120 PAGE 3 OF ANNEXURE A- 5 CASH RECEIPTS ON SALE OF 4 TDRS PARA NO.4 UNDER HEADING 'CASH RECEIPTS' 2. 25,79,49,616 PAGE 4 OF ANNEXURE A- 5 CASH RECEIPTS ON SALE OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES SUB PARA NO.4.2. 3. 1,12,79,442 PAGES 1 & 2 OF ANNEXURE A- 5 CASH RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP PARA NO. 5 UNDER, HEADING 'CASH RECEIPTS'. 4. 9,75,612 PRE-SEARCH AND POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES/ PROCEEDINGS UNSUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES PARA NO.7 UNDER HEADING 'BOGUS PURCHASES MADE TO DEFLATE PROFIT' TOTAL 61,01,31,790 3. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME AS ITS INCOME IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME AS ITS BUSINE SS INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF TH E ACT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER ABOVE SAID SECTION ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 61.01 CRORES SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT DECLAR ED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 577.84 LAKHS AND PAID TAX THEREON. 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TREATED THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN SERIAL NUMBER 1 TO 3 IN THE ABOVE SAID TAB LE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT ON THE ABOVE THREE ITEMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 60.91 CRORES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 27 1AAA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACC EPTED ASSESSMENT ORDER BY NOT FILING APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). WITH REGA RD TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 3 ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSE E FURNISHED FOLLOWING EXPLANATIONS:- 2. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 61,01,31,790/-IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A. Y. 201]-12 AS SHOWN IN TABLE ABOVE AND AS CONFESSED BY SHRI RAMES H S. SHAH, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF SUMER GROUP WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED FOR THE WRITINGS ON THE PAGES MENTIONED IN CO. NO. HI OF THE TABLE. HE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 24.12.2010 OFFER ED THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS STATED WOULD BE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE F IRM IN THE A.Y. 2011- 12. ALL THESE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS CONTAINED IN BUNDLE NO. A-5, OF SHRI RAMESH S. SHAH EXAMINED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT AND FIRM'S HANDS HAVE GRACEFULLY BEEN REFERRED TO I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA NUMBERS WITH THE HEADING GIVEN IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER OF COLUMN NO.V OF THE TABLE GIVEN ABOVE. IN THIS CONNE CTION THE ASSESSEE FIRM PAID TAXES ON RETURNED INCOME OF RS 5,77,84,650/- A RRIVED AT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DISCLOSED INCOME OF 6I,01,31,790/- AND CLAIMING LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(W) OF THE ACT FOR ITS SRA PROJE CT AT CHANDIVALI. WITH ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN S.271AAA AND REQUEST YOUR GOOD SELF TO DROP THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT ON TAKING LEGAL VIEW IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE IN THE A SSESSEE FIRM 'S CASE. 6. THUS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS DULY OF FERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH; IT HAS ALSO STATED THE MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED AND IT HAS ALSO PAID TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT AN D ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY MAY BE DELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, SINCE HE HA S ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AGGREGATING TO RS. 60.91 CRORES AS INCOME UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. AC CORDINGLY THE AO HAD DENIED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDIN GLY HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PAY THE TAX PAYABLE ON T HE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 60.91 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY, HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S. 271AAA(2) OF THE AC T OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 609.15 LAKHS U/S. 271AAA O F THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 4 7. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS GENERATED THROUGH ITS CO NSTRUCTION BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ONLY AND HENCE THE MANNER OF GENERATION OF INCOME WAS ALSO SPECIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT ON THE ABOVE SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME ALSO, SINC E IT WAS GENERATED OUT OF BUSINESS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY IT. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH TH E CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE AO SHOULD NO T HAVE LEVIED PENALTY UNDER THE ABOVE SAID SECTION AND THE LD CIT(A) SHOU LD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME. 8. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271AAA(3) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME COVERED BY SEC.271AAA OF THE ACT. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 275 TO 277 OF THE P APER BOOK, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEED INGS U/S 271(1)(C) AS WELL AS SEC.271AAA OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE FOR 271 AAA OF THE ACT IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT CLEAR IN HIS MIND WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICA L ISSUE IN THE CASE OF GILLCO DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS P LTD VS. DCIT (2017 )(85 TAXMANN.COM 339) AND HELD THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS DEFECTIVE, S INCE THE BODY OF NOTICE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CHARGES OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 271AAA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE SAME WOULD R ENDER ENTIRE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS VOID AB INITIO. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED T HAT THE ABOVE SAID DECISION SHALL SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE ALSO. M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 5 9. THE LD D.R, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT INCO ME TAX ACT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE ANY STANDARD FORM FOR ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO IS FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT AND THE SAID NOTICE CONTAINS DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER DIFFERENT PROV ISIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE IT CLEAR IN THE NOTICE THAT HE HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA ONLY AND THE SAME IS ALSO KN OWN TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE, YET HE DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION THEREON. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS WELL AWARE THAT AO HAS INITIATED AND LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271AAA ONLY AN D THERE IS NO CONFUSION THEREON. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE LD A.R URGED ON LEGAL ISSUES SHOULD BE DISMISSED. WITH REGARD TO T HE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD D.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD C IT(A). 10. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SINCE THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAA OF THE ACT, WE PREFER TO EXTRACT THE SAME BELOW:- 271AAA. PENALTY WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED.:- (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRECT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HA S BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYA BLE BY HIM, A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPL Y IF THE ASSESSEE, (I ) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDE R SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPEC IFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II ) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III ) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 6 (3) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) O F SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). 11. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AA(3), PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED T O IN SEC. 271AAA(1). THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT I MPOSE ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE S HOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE FOR THE SAME. 12. WE NOTICE THAT THE SUB. SEC (2) PRESCRIBES THREE CONDITIONS, THE COMPLIANCE OF WHICH WILL MAKE THE ASSESSEE ESCAPE F ROM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAA(1) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETW EEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH FIRST TWO CONDITIONS VIZ ., (A) INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT TAKEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND TH E MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS DERIVED WAS ALSO STATED IN THE STATEMENT AND (B) TH E INCRIMINATING MATERIALS THEMSELVES SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. THE ONLY DISPUTE WAS ABOUT PAYMENT OF TA X. AS NOTICED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS ITS BUS INESS INCOME AND ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) THEREON. ACCORDINGL Y IT PAID TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY IT. HOWEVER, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR BUSINESS INCOME, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME ASSESSED BY HIM UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 13. ACCORDINGLY THE AO HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PAY TAX PAYABLE ON THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSES SEE AND ACCORDINGLY TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH TH E CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING REASONING:- M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 7 (A) THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WOULD BE ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES; (B) THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY NOT FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). HENCE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CA NNOT BE EXPECTED TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE AO. (C) THE TDRS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF INCENTIVE PROFITS FLOWING FROM THE SCHEMES FRAMED BY THE CENT RAL/STATE GOVERNMENT. HENCE AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (317 ITR 218), THE INCENTIVE PROFITS ARE NOT DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 14. IN OUR VIEW, ALL THE THREE REASONING GIVEN B Y LD CIT(A) ARE AGAINST THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO RULE THAT T HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHALL ALWAYS BE ASSESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN FACT, THE SAID REASONING IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISIO N RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHETH DEVELOPERS P LTD (2012)(254 CTR 127)(BOM), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDISCLOSED INC OME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, MEANING THEREBY, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS IS ASSESSA BLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS ONLY. THE SECOND REASONING GI VEN BY THE LD CIT(A) WOULD ALSO FAIL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THE S AID DISPUTE IS BEING CARRIED OVER TO TRIBUNAL ALSO. THE THIRD REASONING GIVEN B Y THE LD CIT(A) ALSO DEFIES LOGIC, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM S ALE OF TDRS ONLY AND THE SAID INCOME ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 15. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH IN DECLARING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS HIS BUS INESS INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING M/S. SUMER CORPORATION 8 COMPLIED WITH THE THIRD CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SEC .271AAA(2) OF THE ACT ALSO. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE QU ALIFIES FOR AVAILING IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY PRESCRIBED U/S 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED MANY LEGAL GRO UNDS. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY ON MERITS, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUES. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26.12.2 018. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 26/12/2018 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// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY KISHORE, SPS ITAT, MUMBAI