ITO 18(1)(2), MUMBAI V. LOYAL CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5413/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1048 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR SR
• Assessee Lawyers: GOPAL BOHRA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ./I.T.A. NO.5413/M/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 2011 ) ITO 18(1)(2), R.NO. 104, 1 ST FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012. / VS. M/S. LOYAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., EDEN HALL, DR ANNIE BESANT ROAD, RAJNI PATEL CHOWK, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018. ./ PAN : AAAAT5649M ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, SR AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GOPAL BOHRA / DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .05.2017 / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR THE AY 2010 - 2011, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN AW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,50,000/ - BEING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ANY AMOUNT CHARGED IN EXCESS OF RS. 25,000/ - FOR EACH TRANSF ER IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE NOTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, 2001 AND THE EXCESS AMOUNT WILL BE LIABLE TO TAX AND WILL NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS. 40,50,000/ - IN NATURE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND LIFT FUND ARE NOT IN NATURE OF TRANSFER FEES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED I NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AS HELD BY HONBLE ITAT IN CASE OF HATKESH COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (ITA NOS. 494, 495, 496, 498, 499 & 500/MUM/2011 (AYS 96,97, 00 - 01, 02 - 03, 06 - 07 &07 - 08). 2 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE I S A COOPERATIVE HOUS I NG SOCIETY AND HAD RECEIVED CE RT AIN FUNDS FROM ME MBERS ON ACCOUNT OF ' REPA I RS AND MAINTENANCE FUND ' OF RS . 6 7 , 03 , 625 / - , A N D ' M EM B E R S L I FT FUND ' OF RS . 10 , 00 , 000 / - . T H E AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO F URNIS H THE D ETA I LS AND NATURE OF THESE FUNDS RECEIVED . IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME , THE ASSESSE E SUBM I TTED THE DETAILS OF COLLECTION OF FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS & MA I NTENA N CE I M EMBERS LIFT FUND , WHICH I NCLUDED THE NAME OF THE MEMBER , FLAT N O & AMO UNTS OF F UNDS COLLECTED FROM DIFFERENT MEMBE R S . THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBM I TTED THE DE T A IL S O F EXPEND I TURE OF RS . 18 , 49 , 055 / - I NCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF REPA I RS AND MA I NTENANCE O F T HE B U I LD I NG OUT OF THE ABOVE FUND CO L LECTED. T HE AO FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBM I T COMPLETE NAME , ADD R ESS & P AN O F M E M BERS OF THE SOCIETY , AND TO CONF IRM WHETHER THE SOCIETY HAD T RANSFE R RED ANY FLAT D URING T H E Y EAR , AND WHE T HE R A NY TRA NS F E R F EES W AS R ECE I VED DU RI N G TH E YEA R . IN R E S PON SE TH E ABOVE QUERY , ASSESSEE SU BM I T T ED A R E VI SED LI S T O F REPA IR S & M A INTENANCE F UND S CO LL ECTED F ROM T HE MEMBE R S . IT WAS FURTHE R STATED B Y THE ASSESSEE TH A T D UR I NG THE Y EA R , THE SOCIETY HAD TRANSFERRED ONE F L AT NO . 1 - 4 SOLD BY MRS . JU L EKHA G . PATRAWA LL A TO M R . PASCAL POSTAL , FOR WHICH THE ENTRANCE FEE OF RS . 100/ - , TRANSFER CHARGES O F RS . 500 / - , & TRANSFER FEE OF RS . 25 , 000 / - , AGGREGAT I NG TO RS . 25 , 600/ - WAS PA I D BY T H E PUR C H ASE R OF T HE F L AT . F R OM THE DETAILS SUBM I TTED , IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT DURING T HE YEA R , THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TRANSFER FEES FROM FOLLOW I NG MEMBERS WH I C H WAS CLAIME D AS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION : ( I ) MRS . I NDRAN I C H O K S I OF RS . 9 , 90 , 000 1 - & ( I I) MR . PASCA L POSTE L O F RS . 20 , 60 , 000 / - TOWARDS REPA I RS & M A I NT E N A N CE F UND , A ND ( III ) M/S THAKKARS INVESTMENT PV T . LTD . OF RS . 10 , 00 , 000 1 - TOTAL RS.40,50,000/ - 4. ACCORDING TO AO , THE AGGREGATE SUM OF RS. 40 , 50 , 0001 - AS OUTLINED ABOVE R EPRESENTED TRANSFER FEES IN EXCESS OF L IM I T PRESCR I BED BY THE NOTIFICAT I ON O F G OVT . O F M AHA R ASHTRA I . E . RS . 25 , 000 1 - PER FLA T . THE AO STATED THAT I N THE CASE O F S IN D C O - OP . H OUS I NG SOCIETY THE HON ' BLE HIGH COUR T OF MUMBA I HELD THAT ANY 3 AMOUN T EXCEED ING THE P R ESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS . 25,0001 - PER FLAT IS ELIGIBLE TO TAX . ACCORDING TO AO , WHA T T HE H ON ' B L E HIGH COURT CONSIDERED IN THE SAID DECISION WAS THAT THE TRANSFER FEES CO LL ECTED I S NO T T AXABLE AS PER NOTIFICATION OF 1989 , HOWEVER THE HON ' BLE HIGH COURT HAD N O T CONS I DERED THE NOTIFICATION OF 200 1 . F R O M THE ABOVE , THE AO CONCLUDED THAT T HE FINDINGS OF HON ' BLE HIGH COURT P R OVES BEYO N D DOUBT THAT ANY AMOUNT EXCEED I NG RS . 25 , 000 1 - IS TAXAB L E , AS THE RE I S P R OFITEERING INVOLVED IN SUCH AMO U NTS R ECE I VED . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE DEC I S I ONS B ASED ON THE NOTIFICATION OF 1989 IN SHYAM CO - OP. HSG . SOCIETY LTD . & SUPRABHAT CO - OP . HSG . SOC . LTD . ETC . WERE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE . THE AO FURTHER CONTENDED THA T E V E N TH E D EC I S I ON I N THE CASE OF S I ND CO - OP . HSG . SOC . LTD . WAS ALSO NO T ACCEPTED AND AP PEA L T O HON ' BLE SUPREME COURT HAD BEEN P R OPOSED I N THE CASE . IN V I EW OF THE AB O VE , T HE AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS . 40 , 50 , 000 / - COLLECTED AND CREDITED TO VARIOUS FUN DS W ERE TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. 5. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE ABOVE WR ITT E N S U BM I SS I ONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT CARE F UL L Y . 12 . THE CONTENTION OF THE AO I S THAT T HE APPEL L ANT HAS RECEIVED EXCESS T RANSFER F EES FROM T H REE MEMBERS IN THE GUISE OF REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE FUND / MEMBERS L I FT FUND , WHI C H IS T AXABLE I NCOME AS I T DOES NO T CONSTITUTE THE I NCOME FROM TH E P RINC IPLE OF MUT UA LI T Y AND ACCORD I NGLY THE ASSESS I NG OFFICER BROUGHT TH I S I NCOME T O T A X U NDE R THE HE AD ' IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES '. O N THE OTHER HAND THE AR OF THE APPEL L AN T HAS CONT E N DED THAT THESE I NCOMES ARE V O L UNTARY CONTR I BUT I ON RECE I VED FROM MEMBERS OF THE SO C I ETY F O R THE COMMON PURPOSE OF THE SOCIETY AND THUS COVERED UNDE R THE PR I NCIP L E OF MU TUA L ITY . 13 . TH E AR HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE I SSUE ALREADY STANDS COVERED I N FAVOU R TH E APP E LL A NT B Y THE ORDE R OF THE C I T ( A ) IN I TS OWN CASE FOR A . Y . 2009 - 10 O N I DENT I CA L FAC T S . IN SUPPORT O F THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS THE AR HAS P L ACED ON RECORD THE APPE L LATE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) FOR A . Y. 2009 - 10. (COPY OF ORDER FOR A .Y 09 - 10 IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE NO OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED) . 14 . THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND APPEARS TO BE CORRECT . MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 07 . 02 . 2013 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A . Y . 2009 - 10 [APPEAL NO . CIT(A) - 29/RG - 18/182/11 - 12] HAS DISCUSSED THE MATTER IN DETAIL , AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT . WHILE DECIDING TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : - I) THE 'NO OBJECTION ' FOR SALE/ TRANSFER OF FLATS WERE CONVEYED SUBJECT TO ENTRY FEE OF RS . 100/ - , TRANSFER FEE OF RS . 500/ - , AND TRANSFER PREMIUM OF RS. 25,000/ - . THEREFORE, O NLY ABOVE AMOUNTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY THE MEMBERS AND THERE WAS NO PRECONDITION FROM THE SOCIETY TO THE OUTGOING MEMBER! INCOMING MEMBER TO PAY A TRANSFER PREMIUM MORE THAN RS . 25 , 000/ - I N ORDER TO OBTAIN NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE . 4 II) THE CONTE NTION OF APPELLANT REGARDING CONTRIBUTION BEING COVERED UNDER THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY W AS ACCEPTABLE, SINCE THERE HAD BEEN REGULAR WITHDRAWALS FROM THE FU ND TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE IN SAME/ SUBSEQUENT YEARS , ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS SPEN T ON PAINTIN G, SCALFFOLDING , PLUMBING, AND ALSO PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR MAKING MAJOR REPAIRS . THEREFORE , THE SOCIETY WAS USING THE AMOUNTS CONTRIBUTED BY MEMBERS FOR COMMON BENEFIT OF THE SOCIETY . III) THE ISSUE OF RECEIVING VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUTGOING/ INCOMING MEMBERS WAS DISCUSSED IN THE GENERAL BODY AND WAS RATIFIED BY THE MEMBERS WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED THAT MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 30,000/ - FOR TWO BED ROOM FLAT AND RS. 50 , 000/ - FOR THREE BED ROOM FLA T WOULD BE TAKEN FROM OUTGOING/ INCOMING MEMBERS , AND THERE WAS NO MAXIMUM LIMIT IMPOSED . THUS , THE C ONTRIBUTIONS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE GENERAL BODY AND WERE ACCORDING TO BYE - LAWS OF THE SOCIETY . IV) THE CONTRIBUTION HAD NOT BEEN RE CEIVED FROM INCOMING MEMBER ON THE CONDITION OF PROVIDING MEMBERSHIP . I) IN THE CASE OF SIND CO - OP. HOUS ING SOCIETY VS. ITO (2009) 317 ITR 47 (BOM.) , IT WAS HELD THAT ' IF A N AMOUNT IS RECEIVED MORE THAN WHAT IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE BYE - LAWS OR GOVERNMENT DIRECTIONS, THE SOCIETY IS BOUND TO REPAY THE SAME AND IF IT RETAINS THE AMOUNT, IT WILL BE IN THE NATURE OF PROFIT MAKING AND THAT SPECIFIC AMOUNT WILL BE EXIGIBLE TO TAX ' . IN THE CASE OF MITTAL COURT PREMIS ES CO - OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2010) 320 ITR 414 (BORN.) , IT WAS HELD THAT ' A MEMBER DESIROUS TO PURCHASE OFFICE PREMISES SHALL CONTRI BUTE TO THE SOCIETY FOR COMMON AMENITY FUND/ REPAIRS AND WELFARE FUND SUM OR SUMS AS MA Y BE PRESCRIBED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE FROM TIME TO TIME FOR OFF I CERS / GODOWNS ETC ., ACCORDING TO THE AREA SUBJECT TO RETIFICATION BY T HE GENERAL BODY MEETING '. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAD RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION FROM IN COMING/ OUTGOING MEMBERS WHICH WERE USED FOR REPAIRS OF THE BUILDING W HICH WAS A COMMON BENEFIT AND FACILITIES EXTENDED TO ALL THESE MEMBERS . THESE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT AS A PRECONDITION FOR GIVING ' NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ' FOR TRANSFER OF UNITS . THERE WAS A GENERAL BODY RE SOLUTION PASSED EMPOWERING THE SOCIETY TO RECEIVE THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM M EMBERS AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER OF UNITS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFO RE NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED TRANSFE R FEES IN EXCESS OF GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION BECAUSE THE APPELLANT SOCI ETY HAD RECEIVED TRANSFER FEES ONLY TO THE PERMISSIBLE EXTENT I . E . RS . 25 , 000/ - ON EACH TRANSFER . THE REST OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT TRANSFER FEE BUT A VOLUNTA RY CONTRIBUTION BY A MEMBER FOR THE BET TER MAINTENANCE OF THE SOCIETY WHICH IS COVERED UNDER THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY AND HENCE NOT TAXABLE . ACCORDINGLY , THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED . 15. I FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO , THE APPELLANT HAS R ECE I VED ONLY RS . 25 , 000 1 - AS TRANSFER FEES ON SALE OF THE FLAT . T H E BA L A N CE C ONTR I BUT I ONS ARE RECEIVED TOWARDS REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE FUND MEMBE R S LIFT F UN D ETC ., AND SUCH FUNDS RECEIVED ARE USED FOR BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY FOR COMMON BE N E FIT . T HE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS IN FACT I NCURRED EXPENSES OF RS . 18 , 49 , 055 / - F R OM ' REPA IR S & M A I NTENANCE FUND ' DUR I NG THE YEA R . THE PAYMENT OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS B Y I N COM I NG / OUTGOING MEMBERS IS NOT A PRE - CONDITION FOR TRANSFER OF FLATS BUT ARE COLLECTED O N VOLUNTARY BASIS . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE I DENTICAL TO T HAT I N A . Y . 2009 - 10 , I FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE DEC I SION OF MY PREDECESSOR IN SA I D APPEAL , FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS I DERAT I ON . 5 16 . WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE I N THE CASE OF MITTAL COURT PREMISES CO - OPERATIV E SOCIETY LTD., IT WAS CLEARLY HE L D BY HON ' BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY THAT ' APART FRO M TH A T , EV E N ASSUM I NG THAT THE GOVERNME NT N OTIFICAT I ONS W ERE APPLICABLE , I F THE SOCIE TY C OU LD N O T H A V E CHARGED EXCESS AMOUNT , IT W OULD HAVE TO BE REFUNDED TO T HE MEMBERS . A M E M B ER IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM G I FTING ANY AMOUNT TO THE SOCIETY FOR THE OBJECTS O F T HE SOCIETY . TH E PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALI T Y W O UL D NO T CEASE ON ACCOUNT OF THOSE ASPECTS . AT T H E HI G HE S T , AUTHORITIES UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AC T AND RULES , IF AN Y AC TI O N IS T A K E N , M AY DIRECT AN ADDIT I ONAL AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED . THEREFORE , IN R ESPE CT OF C ONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF NON - OCCUPANCY CHARGES , PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY W OULD A P P LY . ' A PP LYI NG THE SAME RATIO TO THE TRANSFER FEES , T HE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS NOT RECEIVE D A NY E XCESS TRANSFER FEE , WHICH I T I S LI ABLE TO REFUND TO T HE MEMBERS . INSTEAD , THE VO L U NT AR Y CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE FUND MEMBERS LIFT FUND IS FOR THE OBJEC T S OF THE SOC I ETY , HENCE THE PRINCIPAL OF MUTUALITY WOULD APPLY ACCORDINGLY . 17. IN V I EW OF THE ABOVE , J UD I C I A L PR ONOUNCEMENTS AND THE APPE L LATE ORDER O F MY PR EDECESSO R CIT ( A ) FOR THE A . Y . 2009 - 1 0 A N D THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BE I NG I DENTICAL , THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE RECEI P TS O F TH E SOC I ET Y ON ACCOUNT OF REPA IR S & MA I NTENANCE FUND MEMBERS L I FT F U ND AND TRAN SFE R F E E , I S H E L D TO BE COVERED UN DE R T HE PR I NC I P L E O F M UTUALITY . ACCORD I NG L Y , T HE A DDITI O N M ADE OF RS . 40 , 50 , 000 1 - AS I NCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES IS HEREBY DELETED . THEREFO RE , THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE ALLO W. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. BEFORE US, LD AR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO DUTIFULLY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN GENERAL AND THE ABOVE EXTRACTED PORTION OF H IS ORDER IN PARTICULAR. W E FIND THAT A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) TO THE EFFECT THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED AS TRANSFER FEE ON SALE OF FLAT WAS ONLY RS. 25,000/ - , AND THE BALANCE CONTRIBUTION WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS, MEMBERS LIFT FUNDS ETC. CIT (A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT FUNDS SO RECEIVED WAS USED FOR BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY FOR COMMON BENEFITS. DEPARTMENT COULD NOT CONTROVE RT THESE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THUS, WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IE T AXABILITY OF THE RECEI P TS O F TH E SOC I ET Y ON ACCOUNT OF REPA IR S & MA I NTENANCE FUND MEMBERS L I FT F U ND AND TRAN SFE R F E E , AT LENGTH AND RELIED ON THE 6 PRECEDENTS AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDI NGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 T H MAY, 2017. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD ) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 05.05.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI