ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3)(1), MUMBAI V. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY IRON AND STEEL LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 5345/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 5345/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2011 - 12 THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(3)(1), ROOM NO. 204, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, M.K. MARG, MU MBAI - 400020 VS. M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY IRON & STEEL LTD., 501, GARDEN VIEW, 5 TH FLOOR, GULMOHAR PARK, GULMOHAR ROAD, JVPD, JUHU, MUMBAI - 400049 PAN: AABCP8121B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIT PRATAP SINGH ( D R ) ASSESSEE B Y : SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA ( A R ) DATE OF HEARING: 15 /01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 / 02 /2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 10.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 18 (FOR SHORT THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI , WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF ALLOY STEEL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 2,53,68,830/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) OF THE ACT AND THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT , DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 7,04,89,450/ - INTER ALIA MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 8,78,26,853/ - AFTER REJECTING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT 2 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 OF RATE DIFFERENCE AND SHORTAGES AND QUALITY PENALTY AND ADDITION OF RS. 76,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE SA ID ADDITION S . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT (A). 3 . THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S : - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 8,78,26,853/ - TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/EXPLANATION TO SHOW QUALITY DIFFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUPPLIED AND TREATING THE DEDUCTION AS BAD DEBT S. INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT A.O. HAS PASSED DETAILED AND SPEAKING ORDER BY CITING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS REVISED SALE AGREEMENT BY 50% OF SALE VALUE SHOWN IN ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AFTER MORE THAN 5 MONTHS OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND AS PER TEST REPORT, THE FE CONTENT OF THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 60.54% AND THE REQUIREMENT AS PER THE CONTRACT WAS 60% AND ABOVE. HENCE, THERE WAS NO QUALITY DIFFERENCE TO MATERIAL SUPPLIED AS PER CONTRACT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REQUISITE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS TO FIXED ASSETS. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES OF THE SOURCE OF ANY CREDIT ENTRY APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE CASH BOOK FOR VERIFICATION. THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THE ONUS REMAINED TO BE DISCHARGED DESPITE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS VERY DETAILED AND SPEAKING AND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE CORRECTLY MADE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES 3 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 SUBMISSIONS WERE IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. 4. VIDE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 , THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 8,78,26,853/ - TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE GROU ND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDU CTION OF THE SAID AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD RATE DIFFERENCE AND SHORTAGE AND QUALITY PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM AND FURNISH DETAILS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE ALLEGED THAT IT ENTERED INTO A REVISED AGREEMENT IN OCTOBER 2010 WITH THE PURCHASER REVISING THE PRICE TO USD 70 PER DMT AND THIS TRANSACTION THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED LOSS OF MORE THAN RS. 8 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE REVISION IN PRICE WAS BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY OF MATERIAL DISPATC HED AND NON - ACCEPTANCE OF SAID MATERIAL BY THE PURCHASER. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT DETAILS AND EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID LOSS , THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LD. DR SUPPORTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THE SAME IS LIA B L E TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HA S NOT SUBMITTED NECESSARY CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, FOR ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED THE SAID DOCUMENTS TO THE AO AND SOUGHT REMAND. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AO SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT . HOWEVER, THE AO STATED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AS SUCH THE UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT APART FROM THE SAID DOCUMENTS, THE 4 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE LD. COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LD.CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE HOLDING AS UNDER: - UNDER THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED D ISALLOWANCE OF RS. 78,26,853/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RATE DIFFERENCE/SHORTAGE/QUALITY PENALTY. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I FIND THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 24.03.2014 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPIES OF EXPORT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING COPY OF INVOICE RAISED ON PARTY BASED IN CHINA, MATERIAL TEST REPORT, COPY OF AGREEMENT ETC. HOWEVER, SINCE THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED VERY LATE, THE AO COULD NOT VERIFY THE SAME AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT EXPLANATORY NOTES WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 8,78,26,853/ - . THE AO THEREFORE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SUBMITTED NECESSARY CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 8,78,26,853/ - . BEFORE ME THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED APPLICATION U/R 46A AND REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO AO FOR HIS REMAND VIDE LETTER DATED 06.01.2017 BEARING REFERENCE NO. CIT (A) - 18/REMAND REPORT / 2016 - 17. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 15.02.2017 BEARING RE FERENCE NO. ACIT - 11(3)(1)/REMAND /16 - 17 STATED THAT: THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VERY DETAILED AND SPEAKING, AND HAS BEEN MADE AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND AS SUCH THE UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE VIEW, AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THAT THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY/RIGHTLY MADE. THE SAID REMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT AND VIDE REJOINDER DATED 03.03.2017 STA TED THAT THE AO AT PARA NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE 5 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 APPELLANT HAD SHIPPED THE GOODS AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BUYER. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD IGNORED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO. SIMILARLY THE APPELLANT DREW MY ATTENTION TO PARA NO. 4.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH OBSERVATION OF THE AO WERE MENTIONED. THE APPELLANT STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT, THE NON - ADMISSION DOCUMENTS AT SR. NO. 1 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK (INDEX II) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WOULD LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE SAID DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO CORROBORATE THE FACTS ON RECORD. WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO KIND LY ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND GRANT US THE NECESSARY RELIEF. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL STRENGTH IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAINING DOCUMENTS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND REJECTED AS SUCH. ON PERUSAL OF THE EVIDENCES AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS CLEAR THAT AFTER THE SHIPPING OF CONSIGN MENT AND BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF EXPORTS PROCEEDS, THE BUYER REJECTED THE GOODS ON ACCOUNT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT. THEREFORE THE GOODS WERE KEPT BONDED AT OPEN SPACE IN CHINA. EVEN AFTER REPETITIVE REQUEST BY THE APPELLANT, THE CUSTOMER OF THE APPELLANT REFUS ED TO ACCEPT THE GOODS. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER GAP OF 5 MONTHS THE APPELLANT RENEGOTIATED AND ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 27.09.2010 AT THE REVISED PRICE OF THE CONSIGNED GOODS FOR THE REASONING MENTIONING THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY THE BALANCE FIGURE OF RS. 8,7 8,26,853/ - WERE CLAIMED BY WAY OF RATE DIFFERENCE/SHORTAGE/QUALITY PENALTY ETC. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND THAT THIS IS A LOSS INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE. ALTERNATIVELY THE SAME IS A LSO IN THE NATURE OF BAD DEBT U/S 36(2) AND /OR 36(1)(VII). I AM THEREFORE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,78,26, 853/ - . ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 . WE N OTICE THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MOVE D AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT (A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FRO M THE AO. HOWEVER, THE AO INSTEAD OF 6 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS AND TAKING NECESSARY ACTION SENT THE REPORT STATING AS UNDER: - THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VERY DETAILED AND SPEAKING, AND HAS BEEN MADE AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND AS SUCH THE UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE VIEW, AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THAT THE ADDITION S/DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY/RIGHTLY MADE. 8 . FROM THE RESPONSE OF THE AO, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAD MADE HIS MIND NOT TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED 13 DOCUMENTS FOR ADMITTING THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE , WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR DETERMINING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE SAID ISSUE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THESE DOCUMENTS REQUIRE VERIFICATION BY THE AO. WE THEREFORE , SET ASIDE THE FIND ING S OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AFRESH , IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES . WE FURTHER DIRECT THE AO TO AFF ORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE SAME . 9 . VIDE GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE GROUN D THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN QUESTION . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT AS PER THE INFORMATI ON RECEIVED FROM AIR DATA BASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 76,00,000/ - IN ITS ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO 7 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 EXPLAIN AND FURNISH THE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRIE S. HENCE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 10 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 09.11.2016 SUBMITTED DETAILS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT. SINCE, THE AO DID NOT VERIFY THE SAID DOCUMENTS DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LI GHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED COMPLETE DETAILS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAIID DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) DURING THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT (A) THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO NOT VERIFIED THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RUL E 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES . HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE AO AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011 - 2012 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY , 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ( RAM LAL NEG I ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 28 / 0 2 / 2020 ALINDRA, PS 8 ITA NO. 5345 / MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 1 2 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE AP PELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI