Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4374 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-02-2020
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
14-08-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5309 / MUM . /201 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 09 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. UNIT NO.1, BRADY GLADYS PLAZA 1 447, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 013 PAN AAACI8431L . RESPONDENT ITA NO. 5093 /MUM. /2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 09 ) ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. UNIT NO.1, BRADY GLADYS PLAZA 1 447, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 013 PAN AAACI8431L . APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR JAIN A/W SHRI SHANKARLAL JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI DATE OF HEARING 28.11.2019 DATE OF ORDER 26.02.2020 2 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. TH ESE CROSS APPEAL S ARISE OUT OF ORDER DATED 17 TH APRIL 2017 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 56, MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09. ITA NO. 5309/MUM./2017 REVENUE S APPEAL 2. IN G ROUND S NO.1 AND 2 , THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF ` 1,34,69,853, BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE BENCH MARKED BY USING INTERNAL TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM). 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE , A RESIDENT COMPANY , IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AGRO CHEMICAL PRODUC TS INCLUDING GENERICS AND FORMULATIONS PRIMARILY USED FOR CROP PROTECTION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2008, DECLARING LOSS OF ` 1,36,91,113. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICING THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S WITH ITS OVERSEAS ASSOCIATED E NTERPRISE (AE) AS WELL AS INDEPENDENT PARTIES MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER 3 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. PRICING OFFICER TO DETER MINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH THE A E. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MANUFAC TURED AND EXPORTED CERTAIN AGROCHEMICAL PR ODUCT BOTH TO ITS A E AS WELL AS TH IRD PARTIES. FOR BENCH MARKIN G SUCH TRANSACTION , THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITH NET COST PLUS (NCP) AS THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI). HE FOUND THAT AS PER THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY RE PORT, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPARED ITS NCP WITH THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE NCP OF CERTAIN INDEPENDENT COMPARABLES . S INCE THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES ON THE BASIS OF SINGLE YEAR DATA WAS @ 8.03% AS AGAINST ASSESSEES PLI OF 10. 35%, THE TRANSACTION WITH THE AE WAS CLAIMED TO BE AT ARM'S LENGTH. AFTER PERUSING THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF REVENUE ITEMS. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT TWO COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MAKING LOSSES, HENCE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE. THEREFORE, HE CAL LED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE S . IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE MADE HIS RESPONSE VIDE LETT ER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011. AFTER PERUSING THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER EXPRESSED HIS DISSATISFACTION OVER THE SAME. HE OBSERVED , ASSESSEES REPLY IS VAGUE AND GENERAL IN NATURE AND HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE OP ERATING 4 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION WERE LINKED TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. HE OBSERVED , THE ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED THAT MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CATEGORIZED AS OPERATING EXPENSES OR IN THE NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, HENCE, DO NOT HAVE ANY DI RECT NEXUS OR LINK WITH ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RATIONAL FOR ALLOCATING THE SAID EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF MANUFACTURING COST. FURTHER, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT PERSONAL EXPENDITURE REPORTED IN THE OPERATING EXPENSES RELATES TO MANUFACTURING OR DIRECT EXPENSES. SAME IS ALSO THE CASE FOR TRAVELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES . FURTHER, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TWO OF THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING LOSS MAKING COMPANIES CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE. HAVIN G HELD SO, HE PROCEEDED TO SHORT LIST SEVENTEEN COMPARABLES WITH PLI OF 11.49%. AFTER ADDING OTHER INCOME AND ADJUSTING OPERATING EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION, ETC., HE DETER MINED THE PLI OF THE ASSESSEE @ 5.94%. APPLYING THE PLI OF THE COMPARABLES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE ARM'S LENGTH P RICE OF THE GOODS SOLD TO THE A E AT ` 27,06,72,028. THIS RESULTED IN AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF ` 1,34,69,853. ON THE BASIS OF ADJUS TMENT SUGGESTED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 4. IT IS EVIDENT , BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICABI LITY OF INTERNAL TNMM FOR BENCH MAR KING THE TRANSACTION WITH THE A E. AS O BSERVED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER SEEKING HIS COMMENT. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY 2017, OFFERED HIS COMMENT S ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICERS REPORT AND OTHER FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, HE FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AS EFFECTED SALES TO BOTH THE A E AND NON A E S . FURTHER, HE OBSERVED , IN THE REMAND REPORT THE T RANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED , IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED AUDITED SEGMENTAL PROFIT & L O SS ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO THE A E AND NON A E TRANSACTIONS. WHEREAS , THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE AUDITED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNT S . HE OBSERVED , EVEN IF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICERS METHODOLOGY OF IGNORING OTHER INCOME AND ALLOCATING OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF SALES IS ADOPTED , STILL MARGIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A E SALES AT 5.94% IS MUCH HIGH ER THAN THE MARGIN OF THE NON A E SALES 6 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AT ( ) 8.69%. THUS, HE OBSERVED , THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , IN THE FUNCTION , A S SE T AND R ISK (FAR) ANALYSIS MADE IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MATCH THE A E AND NON A E TRANSACTION S . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGE THE METHOD OF BENCH MARKING BY APPLYING INTERNAL TNMM AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. HE SUBMITTED , I NITIALLY THE ASSESSEE HAD BENCH MARKED ALL THE TRANSACTIONS USING EXTERNAL TNMM. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT, HE SUBMITTED , IN THE INITIAL ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO SEGREGAT ION OF AE AND NON A E TRANSACTION S . HE SUBMITTED , BEFORE APPLYING INTERNAL TNMM, IT REQUIRES TO BE SEEN WHETHER PRODUCTS SOLD TO A E AND NON AE ARE IDENTICAL. HE SUBMITTED , UNLESS THE PRODUCTS ARE SAME, INTERNAL TNMM CANNOT BE APPLIED. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY REFUTING THE CONTENTION S OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED , SIMILARITY IN PRODUCT IS IMPORTANT WHILE APPLYING COMPARABLE U NCONTROLLED P RICE (CUP) METHOD AND NOT AT ALL RELEVANT FOR TNMM. HE SUBMITTED , BEFORE THE TRANSFE R P RICING OFFICER ITSELF , THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AUDITED SEGMENTAL PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF BOTH AE AND NON AE TRANSACTION S AND HAS ALSO 7 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. MADE SUBMISSIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM. HE SUBMITTED , BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND SUPPORTING APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM AND HAS ALSO FURNISHED A BENCH MARKING APPLYING INTERNAL TNMM. HE SUBMITTED , THOUGH , THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ALONG WITH SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE TRANSFER PRI CING OFFICER FOR OFFERING HIS COMMENT, HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS NOT UTTERED EVEN A SINGLE WORD O BJECTING TO APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM. HE SUBMITTED , WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION S RELATING TO SALE OF MANUFACTURED PROD UCTS BOTH WITH AE AND NON A E S AND SEGMENTAL INFORMATION RELATING TO SUCH TRANSACTION S ARE AVAILABLE , INTERNAL TNMM IS THE M OST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO BENCH MARK THE TRANSACTION. HE SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE CAN CHANGE THE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTION AT SUBSEQUENT STAGE, IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE EARLIER METHOD IS NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THUS, HE SU BMITTED , THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE HAS TO BE UPHELD. HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) MATTEL TOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT, ITA NO.2476/MUM./2008, ETC., DATED 12.06.2013; II) CIT V/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEM LTD., ITA NO.1120 OF 2014, DATED 16.12.2016; III) SI GROUP INDIA LTD. V/S ACIT, ETC., ITA NO.1307/MUM./2014, ETC., DATED 19.06.2019; IV) M/S. TECNIMOUNT ICB PVT. LTD. V/S ACIT, ETC., ITA NO.4608/ MUM./2010, ETC., DATED 17.07.2012; AND 8 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. V) DCIT V/S EPCOS FERRITES LTD., ITA NO.1597/KOL./2017, ETC., DATED 30.01.2019. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SHORT ISSUE BEFORE US IS, WHETH ER THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF INTER NATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH THE AE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY APPLYING EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL TNMM. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER RELAT ES TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF EXPORT OF GOODS TO THE AE. IT IS EVIDENT, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS MANUFACTURE D PRODUCTS BOTH TO THE A E AND THE NON A E S . FURTHER, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED BY HIM, THE AS SESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE AUDITED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF COST/ OPERATING EXPENSES. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING , EXCEPT MAKING A GENERAL OBSERVATION THAT ASSESSEES REPLY IS VAGUE AND GENERAL IN NATURE WITH REGARD TO THE LINKAGE O F OPERATING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT ON THE AUDITED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ULTIMATELY, WHAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS DONE IS, HE HA S ALLOCATED A PART OF THE OPERATING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON T HE BASIS OF SALES MADE TO THE A E FOR COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PROCESS, HE HAS D ETERMINED THE PLI OF 11.49%. OF COURSE, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER 9 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. HAS EXCLUDED TWO COMPA RABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE LOSS MAKING COMPANIES. 8. BE THAT AS IT MAY, BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND SEEKING APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM, BUT HAD ALSO FURNISHED A BENCH MARK ING UNDER INTERNAL TNMM WITH ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE , THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER MATERIALS WERE FORWARDED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FOR OFFERING HIS COMMENT S ON THE APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED IN PARA 5 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS)S ORDER, THOUGH, THE TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER HAS REFERRED TO ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF INTERNAL TNMM, HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY ADVERSE COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SAME. ONLY OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IS WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOCATION OF OPERA TING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF SALES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS BOTH TO A E AND NON A E S . IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT AUDITED SEGME NTAL RESULTS RELATING TO BOTH A E AND NON A E SALE S HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THEREFOR E, WHEN THE PROFITABILITY OF SIMILAR N ATURE OF TRANSACTION WITH THE A E AND NON AE S 10 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. ARE AVAILABLE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE NET MARGIN EARNED ON NON - AE TRANSACTION S CAN BE CO NSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF TRANSACTION WITH THE A E . IT IS WORTH MENTIONING, BEFORE US THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD SUBMITTED THAT FOR APPLYING INTERNAL TNMM THERE HAS TO BE PRODUCT SIMILARITY. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT CONV INCED WITH THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION. ON A CAREFUL READING OF RULE 10B IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT UNLIKE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE (CUP) METHOD, PRODUCT SIMILARITY IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR UNDER TNMM AS THE NET MARGINS OF THE CONTROLLED AS WELL AS UNCONTROLL ED TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE COMPARED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE AUDITED SEGMENTAL ACCOUNTS OF BOTH AE AND NON AE TRANSACTIONS. PERTINENTLY, EVEN THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT APPLIED CUP BUT HAS DETERMINED THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE BY APPLYING EXTERNAL TNMM. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE AE BY APPLYING INTERNAL TNMM IF RELEVANT INFORMATION RELATING TO BOTH THE SEGMENTS I S AVAILABLE . THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUPPORT OUR AFORESAID VIEW. 9. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NET COST PLUS MARGI N OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE A E IS 10.35% AS AGAINST MARGIN OF SIMILAR T RANSACTION WITH NON AE AT ( ) 5.33%. EVEN , ADOPTING THE 11 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. METHODOLOGY OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER OF ALLOCATING OPERATING COST AND DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF SALES TURNOVER, THE MARGI N OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE A E @ 5.94% COMPARES FAVOURABLY WITH THE MARGIN OF NON A E TRANSA CTION @ ( ) 8.69%. THUS, LOOKED AT FROM ANY ANGLE, THE PRICE CHARG ED FOR TRANSACTION WITH THE AE, UNDOUBTEDLY , APPEARS TO BE AT ARM'S LENGTH REQUIRING NO FURTHER ADJUSTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORES AID, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2, RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN GROUNDS NO.3 TO 6, THE REVENUE HA S CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS. 11. BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE VERIFYING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT IT HAS INCURRED UNREALIZED FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS OF ` 1,63,72,105. AFTER CA LLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING A NOTIONAL LOSS IS CONTINGENT IN NATURE, HENCE, NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY , HE DISALLOWED AS SESSEES CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 12 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF FA CTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, LEARNED COMM ISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM. FOLLOWING THE SAME, HE ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS . 13. THE LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , THOUGH , AGREED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08, HOWEVER, HE RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 AND THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED , IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF FOREIG N EXCHANGE LOSS. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ARISING OUT OF EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BORROWING (ECB) MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE CONTINGENT IN NATURE. HOWEVER, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE MATERIAL ON 13 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. RECORD, IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ITA NO.180/MUM./2012, DATED 22 ND AUGUST 2015, THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ECB WAS AVAILED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANSION OF THREE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL UNIT S, HENCE, NOT ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND FURTHER TAKING NOTE OF A CCOUNTING S TANDARD /11 R/W A CCOUNTING S TANDARD/16, ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LOSS IS ALLOWABLE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT ASSES SMENT YEARS, THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED SIMILAR CLAIM OF LOSS BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSITY TO IN TERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 6, RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. GROUNDS NO.7 AND 8, BEING GENERAL IN NATURE , NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.5093/MUM./2017 ASSESSEES APPEAL 18. IN GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,26,044, UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. 14 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 19. BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THOUGH , THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D EXEMPT INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND AMOUNTING TO ` 23,37,694, HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, HE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. T HOUGH, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE, HOWEVER, REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` 2,87,536, COMPRISING OF INTEREST EXP ENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF ` 1,61,492, AND ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,26,044. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF F ACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING FOUND THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS NO NEXUS WITH INVESTMENT MADE , DELETED THE AMOUNT OF ` 1,61,242. HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) AMOUNTING TO ` 1 ,26,044. 21. REITERATING THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS THE INVESTMENT FROM 15 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME W AS MADE WITH SBI MUTUAL FUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 AND NO FRESH INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) CAN BE MADE. 22. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 23. WE H AVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME, HO WEVER , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SO ME AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED AS TH E INVESTMENT REQUIRES CONSTANT MONITORING. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED , IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SOME DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D(2)(III) HAS TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE AVERAGE VALUE OF ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INC OME DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE AFORESAID ASPECT AND COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 24. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CONFIRMAT ION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 25,02,600, OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS REPAIRS TO PLANT AND MACHINERY. 25. BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,35,27,569, TOWARDS REPAIRS TO PLANT AND MACHINERY. AFTER CALLING FOR NECESSARY DETAILS AND PERUSING THE SAME, HE OBS ERVED THAT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS. ALLEGING THAT DETAILED NARRATION OF N ATURE OF MATERIALS / ITEMS PURCHASED AR E NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE INFORMATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW 20% WORK ED OUT AT ` 27,05,514, B Y TREATING IT AS CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 7.5% ON SUCH EXPENDITURE , THEREBY , MAKING A NET DISALLOWANCE OF ` 25,02,600. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. 26. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED , ALL REQUIRED DETAILS RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WERE FURNISHED NOT ONLY BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER, BU T BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). HE SUBMITTED , THE ASSESSEE 17 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. MANUFACTURES AGRO CHEMICALS AND DUE TO GENERAL WARE AND TEAR EXPENDITURE HA S TO BE INCURRED TOWARDS REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. HE SUBMITTED , SINCE THESE ARE ROUTINE EXPE NDITURE AND NOT FOR ACQUIRING ANY ASSET OF ENDURING BENEFIT, NO DISALLOWANCE , THAT TOO , ON AD HOC BASIS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 27. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REL IED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 28. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CERTAIN EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY M AKING A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT THE NATURE AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE , ON PURELY ON AD HOC BASIS HAS TREATED 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. FURTHER, IT APPEARS , BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO PROVE ITS CLAIM. THOUGH, SUCH EVIDENCES WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY COMME NT. HOWEVER, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER PERUSING THE DETAILS HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED ON REPLACEMENT OF SPARE PARTS. NEVERTHELESS, HE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE BY STATING THAT DETAILED NARRATION OF MATERIALS / ITEMS PURCHASED ARE NOT AVAILABLE. WE FAIL TO 18 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. UNDERSTAND THE AFORESAID REASON ING O F LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ONCE HE ACCEPTS THAT THE EXPENDITURES ARE INCURRED ON REPLACEMENT OF SPARE PARTS, HE CANNOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF BY STATING THAT THE DETAILED NARRATION OF MATERIALS / ITEMS PURCHASED ARE NOT AVAILABLE. AS OBSERVED EA RLIER, O N A PURELY AD HOC BASIS A PART OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION. WHEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED, SUCH DISALLOWANCE PURELY ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT BEING BACKED BY PROPER REASONING CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 29. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF ` 64,185, MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41 OF THE ACT. 30. BRIEF FACTS ARE, DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFYING THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS OF ` 22,98,92,482, AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2008. AFTER CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS RELATING TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF ONE PARTY I.E., ABHINANDAN RASAYAN PVT. LTD., AN AMOUNT OF ` 64,185, HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OUT STANDING SINCE 31 ST MARCH 2005. STATING THAT THE AMOUNT REMAINED OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEA RS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED IT AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY UNDER 19 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 31. L EARNED COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , ONLY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE HAS REMAINED OUTSTANDING / PAYABLE FOR MORE THAN THREE YEA RS , BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVE TREATED IT AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER BASIC CONDITION S OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. ADMITTEDLY, SUNDRY CREDITORS OF ` 64,185, HAS BEEN APPEARING AS THE LIABILITY IN ASSESSEES BOOKS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 ONWARDS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO S HOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT RELATING TO SUCH LIABILITY EITHER IN CASH OR IN KIND , THAT TOO , IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. APPARENTLY, NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS A CESSATION OF L IABILITY. MERELY BECAUSE THE LIABILITY IS PENDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT IT HAS CEASED IN TERMS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS EVIDENT , BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT A PART OF THE 20 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. OUTSTANDING LIABILITY WAS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK AND OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITHO UT EXAMINING THE AFORESAID FACTS HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID PART OF THE LIABILITY IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, DEMONSTRATE S THAT THE LIABILITY HAS NOT CEASED TO EXIST IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER, THE BALANCE AMOU NT WHICH REMAINED TO BE PAID IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10. IF THE AFORES AID IS THE FACTUAL POSITION, NO AD DITION CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF TH E ACT. SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE CREDITORS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK AND OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION . 33. IN GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5, THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE ISSUE OF PROVISION MADE FOR LOSS ARISING ON SALES RETURN AMOUNTING TO ` 40,90,000. 34. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ` 40,90,000 ON ACCOUN T OF PROVISION FOR SALES RETURN, CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IN LETTER DATED 20 TH DECEMBER 2011, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION WAS 21 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME. HO WEVER, ERRONEOUSLY, IT REMAINED TO BE ADDED BACK. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT TO THE INCOME RETURNED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AND ADDED B ACK THE AMOUNT OF ` 40,90,000, TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 35. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. HOWEVER, NOTICING THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE ITSEL F HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 36. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, IN ITS ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT O F ` 40.90 LAKH, TOWARDS PROVISION OF LIKELY LOSS ON SALES RETURN, HOWEVER, IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT HAS ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT IS ERRONEOUSLY LEFT OUT FROM BEING ADDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND REQUESTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME TO HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK TO AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE ARE UN ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, IT IS EVIDENT , THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS A PROVISION MADE 22 ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. FOR LIKELY LOSS ON SALES RETURN. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR AND IS AN ANTICIPATED LOSS. THAT BEING THE CAS E, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, I F SUCH LOSS HAS ACTUALLY ARISEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR DUE TO SALES RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 37. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 38. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 26.02.2020 SD/ - N.K. PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 26.02.2020 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI
