ITO 20(1)(5), MUMBAI V. HARJI KANJI DEVDA, MUMBAI

ITA 5003/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 5003 / MUM/201 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 10 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(5), ROOM NO. 121, 1 ST FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012 . / V. SHRI HARJI KANJI DEVDA, 609, BHAVANI CHAMBERS, KEDARMAL ROAD, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI 400 0 97 . ./ PAN : AAIPP9766A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI V JUSTIN ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRITESH MEHTA / DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.08.2017 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE REVENUE , BEING ITA NO. 5003 /MUM/201 6 , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 3 RD MAY, 2016 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 32 , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 2 CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) . 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.58,92,281 / - BY DELETING T HE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA PARTIES.' 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ONUS IS ONE THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND TRUE NATURE OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HAWALA DEALERS HAVE ADMITTED ON OATH BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THEY HAVE NOT SOLD ANY MAT ERIAL TO ANYBODY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN FINDING THAT CORRESPONDING SALES SHOWN OUT OF MATERIAL INVOLVED IN BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT MENTIONING HOW THIS AND WITH WHAT EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM SUCH FINDI NG WAS ARRIVED AT. IF SUCH EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN (AS CORRESPONDING SALES) THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMANDED TO THE A.O. FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND COMMENTS.' 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED.' 3. THE B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING . THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTL Y, ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 3 INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD CARRIED OUT EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION ON VARIOUS VAT DODGERS (HAWALA OPERATORS) WHO WERE KNOWN TO BE ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SUPPLYING ACTUAL MATERIAL . THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI FORWARDED THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY, PURCHASE BILLS WITHOUT PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF THE GOODS OR BY MANIPULATING DOCUMENTS FOR SUCH PU RCHASES. THE A SSESSEE WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION BILLS FOR PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLO WING CONCERNS: - SR NO. NAME OF THE CONCERNS AMOUNT 1 MANAV IMPEX 1,56,999 2 KAMLESH TRADING CO. 7,42,040 3 NAMAN ENTERPRISES 9,80,980 4 ANKIT ENTERPRISES 34,39,800 5 CORAL TRADING CO. 3,01,000 6 ADARSHA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. 11,13,216 TOTAL 67,34,035 BASED UPON THE SAID INFORMATION, THE A.O. HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HA D ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND THE CASE WAS RE - OPENED U/S 147 OF THE 1961 ACT . NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE 1961 ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 25 TH MARCH, 2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31 - 03 - 2014 , W HICH WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 25 - 03 - 2014, SUBMITTED COPY OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE 1961 WERE ALSO ISSUED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ABOVE PA RTIES BUT THE SAME WERE NOT SERVED ON THE SAID PARTIES AND THE SAME RETUNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS 'NOT KNOWN', 'NO SUCH ADDRESS', 'LEFT' ETC. . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO. ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 4 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THESE HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY GENUINE BUSINESS AND S UCH PARTIES HA D NOT DELIVERED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HAD ONLY GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME AND TO EVADE TAXES. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE PURCHASES FROM HAWALA PARTIES AS BOGUS BEING NON - GENUINE , WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: - (I) THAT THE PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF THE GOODS WE RE OBTAINED FROM THE PARTIES BASED IN GREY MARKET AND TO GIVE IT COLOUR OF BEING GENUINE PURCHASES, THE BOGUS BILL/ ACCOMMODATION BILL WAS OBTAINED FROM THE SUPPLIER WHO DECLARED HIMSELF AS HAWALA DEALER UNDER MVAT ACT, 2002. (II) THOUGH THE PURCHASES ALLEGED AS GENUINE AND SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MAKE BY MAKING PAYMENT THEREOF BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, THE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS OSTENSIBLY IN THE NAME OF THE APPARENT SELLERS. (III) THIS IS INFORMATION AVAILABLE I N PUBLIC DOMAIN FORM WHICH, THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL AWARE THAT HE WAS ENTERING INTO COLOURABLE TRANSACTION WITH ALLEGED SUPPLIERS, AS THESE SUPPLIERS ARE INDULGING IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS RIG HT FROM THEIR INCEPTION. (IV) ALTHOUGH NO DEFECTS WERE POINTED BY T HE TAX AUDITORS, THIS IS PURELY BECAUSE OF THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF THE TWO FACTS, NAMELY ON ONE HAND AUDIT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY VIDE HIS REPORTING IN FORM NO.3CD AND ON THE OTHER HAND, TAX AUDIT IS ALWAYS CARRIED OUT ON A TEST CHECK BASIS AS IT WILL BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT 100% CHECKING FOR ANY LAYMAN GIVING THE VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS. THUS THERE IS ALWAYS POSSIBILITY OF ANY DEFECTS GETTING MISSED OUT BY THE TAX AUDITOR. (V) DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESS E E HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE PARTIES. THUS THE ASSEESSEE HAS FAILED ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 5 TO GIVE THE CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THIS ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE PURCHASES PERSE WAS NOT THE ISSUE HERE AND HENCE THESE ALLEGED PURCHASE WERE NOT BEING TREATED AS BOGUS UNTIL SPECIFIC INFORMATION IS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TA X DEPARTMENT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSE HAS NOT PURCHASED GOODS FROM THESE DEALERS, BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE GOODS HAVE IN FACT SOMEHOW ENTERED IN THE ASSESSEE'S REGULAR BUSINESS PREMISES. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GIVE ANY CONVINCIN G AND COGENT EXPLANATION. AS TO HOW, THESE GOODS HAPPENED TO COME IN THEIR POSSESSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON SUCH PURCHASES WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO FULLY EXPLAIN WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE , THE ENTIRE PURCHASES WERE TREATED AS BOGUS AND AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 67,34,035/ - , VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16 - 03 - 2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE 1961 ACT . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16 - 03 - 2015 PASSED BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE ADDITIONS W.R.T. BOGUS PURCHASES T O THE TUNE OF 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES , BY OBSERVING AS UNDER , VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03 - 05 - 2016 : - 5.9. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SUPPLIERS. THE AVERMENT OF THE APPELLANT BEFOR E THE AO THAT NO OTHER RECORDS EXCEPT PURCHASE BILLS AND PAYMENT DETAILS ARE MAINTAINED COUPLED WITH THE RESULT OF THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE AO, IS ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASTING A STRONG DOUBT ON THE NATURE OF THE TRANSAC TION. I AM OF THE FIRM BE LIEF THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE CASH PURCHASES FROM OTHER PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. THE APPELLANT TOOK ONLY BILLS FROM THESE 6 PARTIES AS ACCOMMODATION TO EXPLAIN THE PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 6 PURCHASE FROM THESE 6 PARTIES CANNOT BE ADDED AS BOGUS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE TAXED IS THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH TRANSACTION. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 100% OF THESE BOGUS PURCHASES. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. SHOULD BE REASONABLY RESTRICTED TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE OF THE DISALLOWANCE BY ADOPTING 12.5% OF RS. 67,34,035/ - . THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRICTED TO A SUM OF RS. 8,41,754/ - . THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 58,92,281/ - . GROUND NO. 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03 - 05 - 2016 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE UTILIZATION VIS - - VIS CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ALLEGED ENTRY OPERATORS , FOR ITS PRINTING AND PUBLISHING BUSINESS . THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS A ND TRUE NATURE OF THE SE PURCHASE TRANSACTION S AMOUNTING TO RS. 67,34,035/ - . 7 . THE LD. COUNSEL SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS QUITE RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF 12.5%. 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PRINTING AND PUBLISHING. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTME NT HAD CARRIED OUT EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION ON VARIOUS VAT DODGERS (HAWALA OPERATORS) WHO WERE KNOWN TO BE ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SUPPLYING ACTUAL MATERIAL . THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI FORWARDED TO T HE AO THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY, ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 7 PURCHASE BILLS WITHOUT PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF THE GOODS OR BY MANIPULATING DOCUMENTS FOR SUCH PURCHASES. THE A SSESSEE WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION BILL S FOR PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLO WING CONCERNS: - SR NO. NAME OF THE CONCERNS AMOUNT 1 MANAV IMPEX 1,56,999 2 KAMLESH TRADING CO. 7,42,040 3 NAMAN ENTERPRISES 9,80,980 4 ANKIT ENTERPRISES 34,39,800 5 CORAL TRADING CO. 3,01,000 6 ADARSHA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. 11,13,216 TOTAL 67,34,035 BASED UPON THE SAID INFORMATION, THE A.O. HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HA D ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE - OPENED U/S 147 OF THE 1961 ACT . NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE 1961 ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 25 TH MARCH, 2014 WHICH WAS STATED TO BE DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31 - 03 - 2014 , WHICH WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO NOTICE DATED 25 - 03 - 2014, SUBMITTED COPY OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE 1961 WERE ALSO ISSUED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ABOVE SIX PARTIES BUT THE SAME WERE NOT SERVED ON THE SAID PARTIES AND THE S AME RETUNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS 'NOT KNOWN', 'NO SUCH ADDRESS', 'LEFT' ETC. . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THESE HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY GENUINE BU SINESS AND S UCH PARTIES HA D NOT DELIVERED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE BUT HAD ONLY GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME AND TO EVADE TAXES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCH ASE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 8 PRODUCED COPIES OF INVOICES AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH PROOF OF PAYMENT MADE TO THESE PARTIES THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT DELIVERY CHALLANS ARE NOT MAINTAINED , NOR THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE TRANSPORT RECEIPTS, STOCK REGISTER OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE MOVEMENT OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THESE PARTIES WAS USED/CONSUMED FOR ITS P RINTING AND PUBLISHING BUSINESS BUT CONSUMPTION/U TILIZATION OF THE SAID MATERIAL FOR PRINTING/PUBLISHING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVED. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE CONSUMPTION/UTILIZATION OF THE SAID MATERIAL FOR ASSESSEE PRINTING/PUBLISHING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH MATERIAL EVIDE NCES , WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID MATERIAL SO ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED FROM SIX HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS WAS CONSUMED/UTILIZED FOR ITS PRINTING/PUBLISHING BUSINESS, THERE IS ALWAYS POSSIBILITY OF DEFLATING/SUPPRESSING PROFITS BY OBTAINING BOGUS BILLS UNLESS UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION IS PROVED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES KEEPING IN VIEW FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE , BOTH THE PARTIES FA IRLY AGREED THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVE THE UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF SAID MATERIAL FOR PRINTING/PUBL ISHING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT AND COGENT EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE MATERIAL ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE HAWALA ENTRY PROVIDERS HAD BEEN UTILIZED/CONSUMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF PRINTING/PUBLISHING AND TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION . THE AO IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN DE - NOVO SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ADMIT ALL NECESSARY AND RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO . AT THIS STAGE WE ARE REMINDED OF THE LATEST ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 9 DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N. K. PROTEINS LTD. V. DCIT (2017 - TIOL - 23 - SC - IT). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I N ITA NO. 5003 /MUM/201 6 FOR A.Y. 200 9 - 10 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.08.2017 AUGUST 2017 . 16.08.2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SINGH ) ( RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 16.08.2017 [ . . ./ R.K. , EX. SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED , MUMBAI 4. / CIT - CONCERNED , MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ITA 5003 / MUM/201 6 10 DRAFT DICTATED ON 08.08.2017 SR PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR ON 0 9 - 08 - 2017 SR PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACE BEFORE THE 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH SR PS