DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI V. BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5231/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1254 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H N SINGH CROSSOBJECTON
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010 11 & 2011-12 DY CIT CIR 3(4) MUMBAI VS. M/S BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., 12/D1, GROUND FLOOR, ESTEE GEEJAY CHS, SAIBABA NAGAR, BORIVALI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 092. PAN AADCB5321R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO. 223/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5231/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y : 2011 -12) M/S BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., MUMBAI 400 092. PAN AADCB5321R VS. DY CIT CIR 3(4) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI H N SINGH FOR THE CROSS-OBJECTON BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T WO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), BOTH DATED 12.08.2015, WHICH IN TURN AR ISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153 C OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A CROSS-OBJECTION FOR A.Y. 2011-12. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THE A PPEALS AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION, WE SHALL PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOG US PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,95,10,920/- DESPITE THE GENUINENE SS OF THE PURCHASES NOT BEING PROVED AND THAT THE PARTY IS AN ACKNOWLED GED PROVIDER OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE COMMISSION AT 1% AS AGAINST 6% ESTIMATED. BY THE AO AS PER THE NORMAL PRACTICE OF SUCH TRANSACTION FOR A.Y. 2011-12 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF SUCH PURCHASES DESPITE THE GENUINE NESS OF THE PURCHASES NOT BEING PROVED AND THAT THE PARTY IS AN ACKNOWLEDGED PROVIDER OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL/CROSS-OBJE CTIONS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2010-11, HOWEVER IT HAS FILED A GROUND VIDE ITS APPLICATION, DATED 20.07.2018, UNDER RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES, WHICH READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDIT IONS OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF ` 3,95,10,920/- IN ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W .S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT ANY INCRI MINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FOR A.Y. 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJE CTIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDIT IONS OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS 1,00,09,026/- IN ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT AN Y INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 3 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF RS 1,00,09,026/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION ISS UE BY FILING APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF ITAT RULES FOR AY 2010-11 WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE FILED IN AY 2011-12 CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO M AKE ADDITIONS WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND DURING SEARCH. N OW WE SHALL DECIDE THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SAID APPLICATION AND ADJUDIC ATE IF ADMITTED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS APPLICATION, DATED 20.07.2 018, UNDER RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES, FOR A.Y. 2010-11. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 27. RESPONDENT MAY SUPPORT ORDER ON GROUNDS DECIDE D AGAINST HIM. THE RESPONDENT, THOUGH HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED, MA Y SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS DECIDE D AGAINST HIM. THIS RULE PROVIDES THAT THE RESPONDENT WHO HAS NOT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS DECIDED AGAINST HIM. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITIONS MA DE WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WAS FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFOR E CIT(A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NO OCCASION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT FULFILLING THE QUALIFYING CONDITI ON THAT THE ISSUE IS PROPOSED TO BE RAISED IN THE SAID APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 4 CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RESPONDENT. WE ARE THER EFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT M AINTAINABLE AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. WE SHALL TAKE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS THE LEA D CASE. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CA RRIED OUT BY THE DDIT (INV), MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUNTECK REALTY LIMITED AND ITS GROUP COMPANIES, PROMOTER & EXECUTIVES ON 11.01.2012. THE ASSESSEE, BEING A GROUP COMPANY OF M/S. SUNTECK REALTY LIMITED, WAS COVERED IN THE SEA RCH. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S. 153C DATED 08.02.2013 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.08.20 13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 2,84,07,893/- AS AGAINST ` 2,87,32,235/- FILED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCO ME ON 15.10.2010. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEV ELOPERS, BUILDERS, AND CONTRACTOR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED TOTAL PURCHASES OF ` 99,77,20,717/- AND HE WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE DETAILS OF SAID PURCHASES, TIN, NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE, WHICH WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE MEAN TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORM ATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, REGARDING SO ME SUSPICIOUS PARTIES SUPPLYING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY WITHOUT SUPPLY ING ACTUAL MATERIAL. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOUND M/S. MAHAMANTRA METAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD., APPEARING IN THE LIST OF BOGUS PARTIES, TO BE ONE FROM WHOM ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO ` 3,95,10,920/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADD ED THE AMOUNT OF ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 5 ` 3,95,10,920/ TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UPON AS SESSEE FAILING TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ENTERED INTO CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS TO INCREASE THE TURNOVER AND HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT OF 0.87% ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SAI D TRANSACTIONS WERE ` 56,43,30,406/- AND GROSS PAYMENTS TO M/S. SAFECO PR OJECTS PVT. LTD. WAS ` 55,93,99,782/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH AT IN THE NORMAL COURSE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION OF 6% BUT THE PROFIT SHOWN ON THESE TRANSACTIONS IS 0.87%. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER ALLOWING SET-OFF OF THE PROFIT DECLARED @0.87% I.E. ` 49,30,624/-, MADE A NET ADDITION OF ` 2,89,29,200/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S. 1 43(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2014. 6. THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,95,10,920/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES AND ALSO REDUCED THE COMMISSION ON THE TRANSACTIONS WHI CH WERE INTENDED FOR INCREASING THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE TO 1% FROM 6% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 9.14 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS O F THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE SALES TAX WEBSITE. THE AO FAIL ED TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE BOGUS NOR ANY CASH TRAIL HAS BEEN EST ABLISHED BY AO. THE AO ALSO FAILED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRIES. THE AO FAILED TO REBUT THE EVIDENCES LED BY THE APPELLANT . EVEN OTHERWISE, TH E SALES TAX INTIMATION IS A GENERAL INTIMATION. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE POSITION OF THE LAW INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL, WHICH WOULD BE BINDING ON THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES, THE ADDITION OFRS.3,95,10,920/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED . ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 6 . 10.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. M/S. SAFCO PROJECTS PVT. LTD. WAS CONTRACTOR WHO WAS DOI NG THE WORK OF THE APPELLANT. DURING SURVEY/SEARCH, SHRI VIKRAM CHIRIM AR OF M/S. SAFCO P LTD HAS ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS DONE @1% OF TU RNOVER COMMISSION. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF 6% OF COMMISSION WI THOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRIES OR QUOTING COMPARABLE. IN VIEW OF THE STA TEMENT OF SHRI VIKRAM CHIRIMAR, THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO 1% OF COMMI SSION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED CAREFULLY THE RELEVANT RECORDS AS PLACED BEFORE US. WE OBSERVE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS MADE BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,95,10,920/- WHICH WE RE DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE AO WERE NOT REBUTTED BY THE AO AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHA RGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AO COULD NOT ESTA BLISH MONEY TRAIL FOR THE SAID BOGUS PURCHASES. WE ALSO FIND HERE THE AO HAS NOT D ISPUTED THE CORRESPONDING SALES BY THE ASSESSEE MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSE SSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM GREY MARKET. WE FIND SOME MERIT IN THE A RGUMENTS OF THE LD DR THAT THE PARTY FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES IS UNDOUBTEDLY A HAWALA ENTRY PROVIDER WITHOUT SUPPLYING ACTUAL MATERIALS AND THE REFORE SOME INCOME HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX ON THE SAID PURCHASES WHICH THE ASS ESSEE MAY HAVE EARNED BY WAY OF SAVINGS MADE BY PURCHASING THE GOODS FROM GREY M ARKET. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY OF COMPLETE DELETION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. IN THE SIMILAR FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES THE COORDINATE BENCHES HAVE BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW OF MAKIN G THE ADDITIONS RANGING FROM 2% TO 30%. HAVING REGARDS TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GP ALREADY RETURNED WE ARE INCLINED TO DIRECT THE AO T O MAKE ADDITIONS AT 6% OF THE ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 7 BOGUS PURCHASES TO BRING TO TAX THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE SAID PURCHASES. SO GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. SO FAR AS THE RESTRICTION OF ADDITION TO 1% FROM 6% BY THE CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, THE LD CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDE R BY DIRECTING THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITIONS TO 1%. THE LD CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATI NG THE CASE FURTHER RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI VIKRAM CHIRIMAR IN WHICH HE ADMIT TED THAT SAID TRANSACTIONS FOR INFLATING THE TURNOVER WERE MADE AT A COMMISSION OF 1% OF THE TURNOVER FOR WHICH ONLY ONE PARTY WAS APPOINTED I.E. SAFCO PROJECTS PV T LTD. SO WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A ) ON THIS ISSUE AS THE SAME IS BASED UPON THE CORRECT REASONING AND THEREFORE WE A FFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO 1 IS PARTLY ALLOW ED AND GROUND NO 2 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO:5231/MUM/2015 & CO:223/MUM/2015 9. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CO AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DECIDING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. WE WILL FIRST DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED IN CO WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO MAKE ADDITIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS AS SEIZED DURIN G THE SEARCH. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE VIDE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS RAISED THE ISSU E THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS WITH REGARD TO BOGUS PURCHASE WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH QUA THE SAID ADDITIONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT NO INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 8 COURSE OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND ALSO ESTIMATING THE COMMISSION @6% ON THE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE INTENDED TO INCREASE THE T URNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE DECISIONS OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN DEFENCE OF HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NAME LY CIT VS CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD (2015)374 ITR 645 (BOM) AND CIT VS MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (2014) 49 TAXMANN.COM 172(BOM NAG). 10. AFTER PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALL ON THE BASIS OF EXAMINATION OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION FLOWING/COMING TO HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT BASED UPON ANY SEIZED INCRIMINATING MATERIALS AS THERE WAS NO SUCH INCRIMINATING MATERI AL, WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE SEARCH PARTY. WE SPECIFICALLY PUT THE QUEST ION TO THE LEARNED DR ON THIS ISSUE, BUT HE COULD NOT GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE REPLY AN D ONLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY QUA THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS JUR ISDICTION TO MAKE ADDITION VERY LIMITED TO THE EXTENT AND ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MA TERIALS WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT AS THE POWERS OF THE AO ARE NOT CO-EXTENSIVE AS UNDER THE NORMAL SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) O F THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD (SUPRA) AND CIT VS MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ITA NOS.5230 & 5231/MUM/2015 CO 223/MUM/2018 BRIANNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 9 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES, REVER SE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS AS THE SA ME ARE WITHOUT LAWFUL JURISDICTION. THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED 11. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CRO SS OBJECTION HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. AS A RESULT, APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 FOR AY 2010 -11 IS DISMISSED AND CO FOR 2011-12 BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE FOR AY 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHILE THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR A Y 2011-12 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE C I T(A), MUMBAI. 4. THE C I T 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI