ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. METFORM CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 5292/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7814 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T A KHAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Capital asset; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 69C; 14A; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA , JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. NO. 5292 /MUM/20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2 0 1 0 - 11 ) ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX 25(2), ROOM NO.108, 1 ST FLOOR., C - 11, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, B K C, BANDRA,(E), MUMBAI - 400051 / VS. M/S METFORM CORPORATION, 601 - 602, SIDDARTH ARCADE - 3, L T ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI - 400092 ./ PAN : AAAFM9883D ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T A KHAN / RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI ADITYA AJGAONKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 6 .12.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22. 1 2 . 201 7 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) - 21, MUMBAI DATED 21.7.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 1,37,875/ - WHICH WAS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE I.T. ACT BY TREATING THE PURCHASE ARE GENUINE.' 2 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE ID.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 3 4, 04,120 / - - WHICH WAS MADE BY TREATING THE SALE OF SCRAP AS UNACCOUNTED SALES.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CFT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 66,8331 - WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME U/S 14A.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CRT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 4,13,512/ - WHICH WAS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL ADDITION MADE DURING THE YEAR.' 5. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON JUDGMENTS OF THE CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. WI THOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE LAWS.' 6. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND M LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NOTICE IX] S 133(6) ISSUED TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM ALLEGED BILLS WERE RECEIVED WERE RETURNED UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND INSPECTOR OF THIS CIRCLE.' 7. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS G ROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES, FROM WHOM ALLEGED BILLS WERE RECEIVED, BEFORE THE AA DESPITE MANY OPPORTUNITIES WERE ACCORDED TO HIM.' 8. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO REBUT FINDINGS OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT VIS - A - VIS BOGUS PURCHASES DESPITE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED TO HIM.' 9. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE MISLEADING SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T MAKE AVAILABLE THE INFORMATION, PROVIDED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT.' 3 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 10. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE NON GENUINE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE 2 . THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1,5,6,7,8,9 AND 10 IS IN RESP ECT OF CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,37 ,875/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE SAME U/S 69C OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE DGIT(INV), MUMBA I AND ALSO FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S SIDDHIVINAYAK STEELS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,37,875/ - AND ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CAL LING UPON TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID PURCHASES , FAILING WHICH THE SAME WOULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) DATED 15.1.2013 TO THE SUPPLIERS. HOWEVER, THE SUPPLIER WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND THEREAFTER FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 4.2.2013 SUBMITTING THEREIN DETAILS OF PURCHASES INCLUDING THE BANK STATEMENTS ETC. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE COP IES OF THE D ELIVERY CHALLAN S , PROOF OF MOVEMENT OF STOCK ETC . THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF SALES AND PURCHASES , VAT/ SALES TAX PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND 4 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 ALSO THE ABOVE BILLS OF PURCHASES AGAINST THE TAX INVOICE TO SIDDHIVINAYAK STEEL . IN VIEW OF THE SAID FACTS T HE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE SAME AS GENUINE PURCHASES. HOWEVER, REPLY OF THE ASSESS DID NOT FIND FAVOUR OF THE AO AND THE AO ADDED RS.1,37,872/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THE SAME THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS OF CAPITAL ASSETS WERE DULY EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE M ERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, PROPRIETOR O F M/S SIDDHIVINAYAK STEEL WHICH WAS MADE BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOM. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS OF PURCHASES OF CAPITAL GOODS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,37,875/ - W HICH COULD NOT BE PROVED BEFORE THE AO WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES REGARDING MOVEMENT OF GOODS, DELIVERY CHALLAN, TRANSPORTATION DETAILS AND FURTHER CORROBORATED BY NON - SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. FINALLY THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E PURCHASES WE RE BOGUS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE TOTAL ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TH E STATEMENT OF SHRI PROMOD KUMAR SINGH, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SIDDHIVINAYAK STEEL RECORDED BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT . UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CASE, WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE 5 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW WHILE MAKING SUSTAINING THE PART ADDITION RANGING FROM 5% TO 12.50% OR A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE S DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ORDER TO TAX THE SAVINGS WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE MADE BY PURCHASING THE MATERIAL FROM GRAY MARKET BY WAY NON PAYMENT OF VAT AND OTHER INCIDENTAL TAXES. TAKING THE CONSISTENT VIEW WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT 100% ADDTITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BUT ONLY PROFIT ON THE SAID PURC HASES COULD BE ASSESSED. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO MAKE ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 12.5% OF THE SAID UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE THE ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 12.5% OF SUCH PURCHASES. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 IS AGAINST THE IN DELETI ON OF ADDITION OF RS 34,04,120/ - BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY TREATING THE SAME AS - SALE OF SCRAP AS UNACCOUNTED SALES. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS CAME UP BEFORE THE B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.6233/M/2012 (AY - 2009 - 10) AND HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL H AS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED THAT THE SIMILAR TREATMENT BE GIVEN FOR THIS YEAR ALSO TO WHICH THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT. 6 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE SUBJECT AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACT ARE THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF SCRAP SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.34,04,120/ - BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCRAP SALES VALUE AS HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE AO IN PARA 6.8 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER : SCRAP SALES SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE(EXCLUDING SCRAP SALES) SALES (IN RS.) SALE VALUE PER MT SALE VALUE (SCRAP) 124.89 MT 4782.63 MT 22,61,88,526 47294 59,06,548 8 . IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.CI T(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MA D E BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP SALES BY HOLDING THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. W E FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 (SUPRA) WHEREBY THE ISSUE IS DECIDED VIDE PARA 5 WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 5. ON APPRAISAL OF THE SAID ORDER, IT CAME INTO THE NOTICE THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE GENERATION OF SCRAP WAS @ 2.91% EQUIVALENT TO 124.22 METRIC TONS. THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE SCRAP SALE IN VIEW OF THE NORMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DGFT OF FOREIGN TRADE WHEREIN THE NORMAL SCRAP CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 5%. THE SCRAP OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 2.91% WHICH WAS FOUND WITHIN THE LIMIT. THE SCRAP RECORD WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RG 1 WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY 7 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER, IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO THE SCRAP WAS SOLD AND ACCEPTED BY D CIT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 FOR A.Y.2008 - 09. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID REASONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT REQUIRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELL ATE STAGE. THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ACCOUNT. GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 10 . THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.66,833/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 11 . FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DI SALLOWED A SUM OF RS.66,833/ - UNDER SECTION 14A BEING INTEREST OF RS.60,083/ - UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND RS.6750/ - UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES BY REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO EARNING O F EXEMPT INCOME OR MAKING THE INVESTMENT WHICH ARE OF CAPABLE OF EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY DIRECTING THE PART DELETION BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE INVESTMENTS IN THE TAX FREE SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR U/R 8 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 8D(2)(II) TO THE TUNE OF RS.60083/ - AND THUS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US . FROM THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US WE OBSERVE THAT THE AMOUNT CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IS RS.60 , 833/ - WHEREAS, AS A MATTER OF FACT THE AMONG ALLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS RS.60083/ - . WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DE LETED THE ADDITION BY RECORDING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUN D S WERE FAR MORE THA N THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SECURITIES YIELDING TAX FREE INCOME . T HEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.RULE 8D (2)(II) WAS NOT CALLED FOR . MOREOVER T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE SUPPORT OF THE DECISION OF CIT V/S RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (BOM), CIT V/S HDFC B A NK LTD (2014), 366 ITR 505 (BOM) WHICH AFFIRMED BY CIT V/S HDFC BANK LTD (2016) 383 ITR 529 (BOM) (SC). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY LEGAL OR OTHERWISE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. ACCUSINGLY , GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 13 . THE FOURTH GROUNDS OF APPEA L IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,13,512/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL ADDITION MADE DURING THE YEAR. 9 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 1 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS CAME UP BEFORE THE B BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.6233/M/2012 (AY - 2009 - 10) AND HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED THAT THE SIMILAR TREATMENT BE GIVEN FOR THIS YEAR AL SO TO WHICH THE LD.DR DID NOT OBJECT. 15 . ON PERUSAL OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE(SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE VIDE PARA 6 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 6. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY THE CIT(A) TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,11,707/ - . BEFORE GOING FURTHER, IT IS NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON RECORD: - 7.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GONE THROUGH THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND DETAILS OF DEPRECATION CLAIMED AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE TO FIXED ASSETS. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.9,11,707/ - ON THE ADDITIONS MADE TO FIXED ASSET. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF ASSETS ALONG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ANNEXURE OF THE ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS. THE PURCHASE HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH PUT TO USE IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN FURNISHED. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING FIXED ASSET IN THE BUILDING TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,19,990/ - , PLANT AND MACHINERY OF RS.27,16,063 / - AND ELECTRIFICATION OF RS.65,448/ - AND ACCORDINGLY THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING IN CASE M/S. METCRAFT ENGINEERING CORPORATION. NO INDEPENDENT VIEWS WERE GIVEN FOR DECL INING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED HIS CASE JUSTIFIABLY BY PROCEEDING THE RECORD AS WELL AS WORKING, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE 10 I.T.A. NO . 5292 /MUM/201 3 VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT REQUIRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. 16 . WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMI SS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 17 . RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22ND DEC, 2017. SD SD ( D.T.GARASIA ) ( RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : . 22. 1 2 .2017 SR.PS:SRL: / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI