ACIT 3(3), MUMBAI V. SHEKHAR K SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 5342/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8308 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G PANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3), ROOM NO. 609, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKARBHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020. VS. SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH 42, MIAMI APARTMENTS, 70 - A, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400026 PAN NO. AAJPS1511P APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : M R. D.G. PANSARI , DR ASSESSEE BY : MR. V. MOHAN , AR DATE OF HEARING : 09 /01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/04/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE . THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007 - 08 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7 , MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A)] AND ARISES OUT OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). 2. THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CAST AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI T (A) ERRED IN DELETING THEADDITIO N OF RS.5,00, 000/ - TOWARDS NON - COMP ETE FEES WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMPETE AGREEMENT DATED SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 2 14. 01.2002 WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE TA XABLE INCOME FOR FUTURE YEAR S AY S 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 WAS DECLARED AS NON - TAXABLE INCOME IN AY2002 - 03 BY ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.01. 2 002 WITH A VIEW TO EVADE TAX ON THE NON - COMPETE FEES AND H ENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO , WAS JUSTIFIED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A DIRECTOR OF VOSSLOH - SCHWABE INDIA PVT. LTD. (VSIN) ENTERED INTO A SERIES OF AGREEMENTS CULMINATING INTO A JOINT VENTURE (JV) WITH VOSSLOH GROUP THAT TOOK EFFECT FROM 31.03.1998. THEREAFTER, VSIN AND THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO ANOTHER AGREEMENT I.E. NON COMPETITION AGREEMENT DATED 14.07.1994. AS PER ARTICLE 3 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION. AS PER CLAUSE 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES HAD AGREED THAT OUT OF THE INITIAL DEPOSIT OF RS.50,0 0,000/ - PAID TO THE ASSESSEE, A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/ - WOULD BE ADJUSTED PER ANNUM BEGINNING FROM 01.04.1998 FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. ALSO, IN JANUARY 2002, THE ASSESSEE AND VSIN ENTERED INTO A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO THE NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT, IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE AND VSIN REVISED THE AGREEMENT. FURTHER, THE JV ITSELF WAS RE - NEGOTIATED IN AUGUST 2003 UNDER WHICH THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN IN VSIN WAS MODIFIED ALONG WITH SEVERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. UNDER THE SAID RE - NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, ALL THE AGRE EMENTS ENTERED IN 1998 WERE TERMINATED INCLUDING THE NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT DATED 31.03.1998. THE NON - COMPETITION AMOUNT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE TRANSLATED AS UNDER: UNDER AGREEMENT DATED JULY 14, 1998, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.50,00,000/ - AS A DEPOSIT TO BE ADJUSTED OVER A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS @ SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 3 RS.5,00,000/ - SUBJECT TO UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT CAN BE TERMINATED WITH A WRITTEN NOTICE AT THE END OF E ACH YEAR. UNDER SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 14, 2002, THE APPELLANT AND VOSSLOH AGREED THAT THE CONDITION FOR ANNUAL OPTION TO TERMINATE WAS REMOVED WITH THE RESULT THE AMOUNT LYING IN DEPOSIT OF RS.35,00,000/ - AT THE TIME BECAME FULLY DUE TO THE APPELLANT. THE JOINT VENTURE ITSELF WAS RE - NEGOTIATED WITH EFFECT FROM AUGUST 8, 2003 UNDER WHICH THE NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT ALONG WITH ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE TERMINATED AND FRESH ARRANGEMENTS WERE PUT IN PLACE. HOWEVER, UNDER THE NEW AGREEMENT, T HE PARTIES DID NOT NEGOTIATE A SEPARATE NON - COMPETE FEE FOR THE APPELLANT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE INCOME FROM NON - COMPETE FEES AS UNDER: DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999 - 00 TO 2001 - 02, THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED NON - COMPETE FEE OF RS.5,00,000/ - EACH AND CLAIMED THAT THE SAID SUMS WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS. THIS POSITION WAS EXAMINED AND DULY ACCEPTED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 00. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, THE A PPELLANT DISCLOSED THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.35,00,000/ - AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT (I) IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF TREATED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR, (II) IT WAS ONLY IN THE AY 2002 - 03 THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE WAS TREATED AS INCOME, (III) THIS WAS A TOOL TO EVADE TAXES BECAUSE NON - COMPETE FEES WAS MADE TAXABLE BY VIRTUE OF INSERTION OF SUB - CLAUSE (VA) TO SECTION 28 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W. E.F. 01.04.2003, (IV) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM TAXABLE INCOME OF SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 4 FUTURE YEARS AS INCOME (WHETHER TAXABLE OR NOT TAXABLE) OF CURRENT YEAR, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT PROVISION IN THE ACT IN THIS REGARD. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE IN COME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS.5,00,000/ - AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(VA), THE SAME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2012, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE REASON FOR ENTERING INTO A SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT ON 14.01.2002 HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AS ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAKEOVER OF VOSSLOH, GERMA NY BY MATSUHITA, JAPAN, WHICH IS A PLAUSIBLE REASON. THAT A SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 14.01.2002 IS ALSO BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VOSSLOH SCHWABE INDIA PVT. LTD. HEL D ON 27.02.2002, THE SAID SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMP ETITION AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED. REFERRING TO CLAUSE 5 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ALL THE BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINING WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS TO BE THE LUMPSUM CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE NON - COMPETE COVENANTS FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF THE NON - COMPETE FEES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/ - CEASED TO RETAIN THE CHARACTER OF DEPOSIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS BECAME CONS IDERATION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2002 - 03. HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S RIGHTFULLY DISCLOSED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2002 - 03, SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 5 CLAIMING IT AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - MA DE BY THE AO TOWARDS NON - COMPETE FEES. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIES ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITS THAT IN THE 1 ST THREE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF TREATED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR. IT WAS ONLY IN THE AY 2002 - 03 THAT T HE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME. THE LD. DR ARGUES THAT THIS WAS DONE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES BECAUSE NON - COMPETE FEES WAS MADE TAXABLE BY VIRTUE OF INSERTION OF SUB - CLAUSE (VA) TO SECTION 28 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 01.04.2003. THUS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FROM A FACTUAL PERSPECTIVE, THE NON - COMPETE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND VSIN WAS ORIGINALLY FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, FOR WHICH A N INITIAL AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - WAS PAID. THEREAFTER, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY DECIDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL REVIEW ALTHOUGH THE NON - COMPETE AGREEMENT WOULD HOLD GOOD FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. IT IS FURTHER STATED BY HIM THAT T HE JV WAS RE - NEGOTIATED IN AUGUST 2003 UNDER WHICH THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN IN THE VSIN WAS MODIFIED ALONG WITH SEVERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. UNDER THE SAID RE - NEGOTIATED ARRANGEMENT, ALL THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED IN 1998 WERE TERMINATED INCLUDING THE NON - COM PETITION AGREEMENT DATED 31.03.1998 , WHICH IN LETTER AND SPIRIT FACTORED NON - COMPETITION AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE JV AND AGREEMENT DATED 14.07.1998 WHICH IN LETTER AND SPIRIT FACTORED NON - COMPETITION DURING THE CURRENCY OF THE JV. THUS THE LD. COUNSEL SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISIONS ARE GIVEN BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE NON - COMPETE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND VSIN WAS ORI GINALLY FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FOR WHICH AN INITIAL AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - WAS PAID. THEREAFTER, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY DECIDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL REVIEW ALTHOUGH THE NON - COMPETE AGREEMENT WOULD HOLD GOOD FOR THE PERIOD O F 10 YEARS. UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 14.01.2002, THE ASSESSEE AND VOSSLOH AGREED THAT THE CONDITION FOR ANNUAL OPTION TO TERMINATE WAS REMOVED WITH THE RESULT THE AMOUNT LYING IN DEPOSIT OF RS.35,00,000/ - AT THE TIME BECAME FULLY DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE JV ITSELF WAS RE - NEGOTIATED W.E.F. 08.08.2003 UNDER WHICH THE NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT ALONG WITH ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE TERMINATED AND FRESH AGREEMENTS WERE PUT IN PLACE. HOWEVER, UNDER THE NEW ARRANGEMENT, THE PARTIES DID NOT NEGOTIATE A SEPARATE NON - COMPETE FEE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE REASON FOR ENTERING INTO A SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT ON 14.01.2002 AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAKEOVER OF VOSSLOH, GERMANY BY MA T SUHITA, JAPAN. THAT THE SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMPETITION AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 14.01.2002 IS ALSO BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VSIN HELD ON 27.02.2002, THE SAID SUPPLEMENTARY NON - COMPETITION AGREEME NT WAS APPROVED. THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - TOWARDS NON - COMPETE AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF INSERTION SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 7 OF SUB - CLAUSE (VA) TO SECTION 28 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 01.04.2003. AS THE REASON GIVEN BY TH E AO IS NOT A PLAUSIBLE ONE AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL. 8. THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN TREATING AS CAPITAL GAINS THE TERMINATION FEE OF RS.2,56,19,997/ - AND 'SEVERANCE' PAYMENT OF RS.45,12,446/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT DATED 31 ST JULY, 2006 AND OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' BUT TAXED BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND 'SALARY' RESPECTIVELY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS IN FACT MADE BY SKS GROUP INCLUDING CANDLELIGHT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. THE ABILITY OF DOING BUSINESS WHICH WAS TERMINATED WAS IN RESPECT OF ME COMPA NY WHICH IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER PERSON IS A SEPARATE ENTITY AND CANNOT CLAIM TO BE THE SAME AS THE COMPANY UNLESS THE COMPANY IS A FARCE. THE INJURY TO THE COMPANY CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE TO THE INDIVIDUAL IN LAW, TH OUGH IT MAY ENTAIL THE SAME IN CERTAIN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. HENCE, THE INCOME ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF 'TERMINATION FEES' WAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED BY THE A.O. AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' RATHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS DRAWING SALARY FROM BOTH XYLON AND VOSSLOHSCHWBE INDIA PVT. LTD. AND THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER - EMPLOYEE RELATION DID EXIST BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID COMPANIES. 9. IN A NUTSHELL, THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE ENTER ED INTO TERMINATION AGREEMENT DATED 31.07.2006 IN ORDER TO TERMINATE THE JV WITH M/S PANASONIC ELECTRONIC WORKS VOSSLOH SCHWAB E GMBH. PURSUANT TO THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 8 ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.3,01,32,443/ - BEING RS.2,56,19,997/ - AS TERMINATION FEE AND RS.45,12,446/ - AS SEVERANCE FEE. BOTH THE AMOUNTS BEING RECEIVED TOWARDS THE TERMINATION OF THE JV, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND OFFERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HELD THAT THE TERMINATION FEE WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION AND THUS BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAID TERMINATION FEE OF RS.2,56,19,997/ - DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. FURTHER, THE AO BROUGHT TO TAX THE SEVERANCE FEE OF RS.45,12,446/ - PAID TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS SALARY. 10. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE TERMINATION FEE OF RS.2,56,19,997/ - AND SEVERANCE FEE OF RS.45,12 ,446/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND SALARY RESPECTIVELY. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIES ON THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL RELIES ON T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISIONS ARE GIVEN BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO TERMINATION AGREEMENT DATED 31.07.2006 IN ORDER TO TER MINATE THE JV WITH M/S PANASONIC ELECTRONIC WORKS VOSSLOH SCHWAB GMBH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.3,01,32,443/ - BEING RS.2,56,19,997/ - AS TERMINATION FEE AND RS.45,12,446/ - AS SEVERANCE FEE. BOTH THE AMOUNTS SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 9 WERE RECEIVED TOWARDS TERMIN ATION OF JV. IN THE CASE OF KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO. LTD. V. CIT (1964) LIII ITR 261 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT CANNOT BE SAID AS GENERAL RULE THAT WHAT IS DETERMINAT IVE OF THE NATURE OF A RECEIPT ON THE CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT OF AGENCY OR OFFICE IS EXTINCTION OR COMPULSORY CESSATION OF THE AGENCY OR OFFICE. WHERE PAYMENT IS MADE TO COMPENSATE A PERSON FOR CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT THE TRADING S TRUCTURE OF HIS BUSINESS OR DEPRIVE HIM OF WHAT I N SUBSTANCE IS HIS SOURCE OF INCOME, TERMINATION OF THIS CONTRACT BEING A NORMAL INCIDENT OF THE BUSINESS, AND SUCH CANCELLATION LEAVES HIM FREE TO CARRY ON HIS TRADE (FREED FROM THE CONTRACT TERMINATED), TH E RECEIPT IS REVENUE; WHERE BY THE CANCELLATION OF AN AGENCY THE TRADING STRUCTURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS IMPAIRED, OR SUCH CANCELLATION RESULTS IN LOSS OF WHAT MAY BE REGARDED AS THE SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME, THE PAYMENT MADE TO COMPENSATE FOR CANCELLA TION OF THE AGENCY AGREEMENT IS NORMALLY A CAPITAL RECEIPT. THUS, AS THE SUM OF RS.2,56,19,997/ - AS TERMINATION FEE AND RS.45,12,446/ - AS SEVERANCE FEE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS TERMINATION OF JOINT VENTURE, IT HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND OFFERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM LTCG IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/04/2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SHEKHAR K. SHAH ITA NO. 5342/MUM/2012 10 MUMBAI ; DATED: 08/04/2019 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. 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// ( SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) ITAT, MUMBAI