ATMARAM N. PATIL, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5421/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9828 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Assessee Lawyers: S M MAKHIJA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Wrong claim; Assessment record; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 5421/MUM/201 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 9 - 10 ) SHRI ATMARAM N. PATIL F - 10/01, SECTOR 4E, KALAMBOLI, PANVEL 410 208. / VS. ITO, 22(3)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AQAPP6927F ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.M MAKHIJA , A.R. / R ESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.C . OMI NINGSHEN, & SHRI SAURABH KUMAR RAI, D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 04/08/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /0 8 /2017 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 26, MUMBAI, DATED 18.07.2016 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10, WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 2 (FO R SHORT ACT), DATED 31.10.2014. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: - 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING APPELLANTS CLAIM OF LAND UNDER TRANSFER BEING AGRICULTURAL LAN D WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE OVERALL FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND/WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM RAISING A LEGAL GROUND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTION IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 BY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS FROM ASSESSES CASE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND/OR VARY ANY OF GROUNDS AT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 4. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT ASSESSES REQUEST THAT LAND UNDER TRANSFER WHEN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AS SUCH NO CAPITAL GAIN ON ITS TRANSFER HAS ACCRUED MAY/ARISEN PLEASE BE ACCEDED TO. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A CIVIL CONTRACTOR HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON 11.2.2009 , DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3,00,901/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS AND THE RETURN ED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3 ) , DATED. 01.12.2011. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWN A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS (FOR SHORT LTCL) OF RS. (1,48,699/ - ) IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SOLD BY HIM VIDE A N AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED.04.07.2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 42,92,500/ - . TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HIM IN THE F.Y. 2001 - 02, ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 3 HOWEV ER , AS THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION WERE DESTROYED DURING THE FLOODS ON 26.07.2005, THEREFORE, THE COST OF THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF A.Y. 2008 - 09 AT RS. 32,50,775/ - . 4. THE CIT - 22, MUMBAI CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE A.O HAD WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATIONS S UMMARILY ACCEPTED THE LTCL CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, NO DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATIO N EXISTED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 . THAT IT FURTHER CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT THAT THE CERTIFICATE DATED. 26.04.2008 WHICH WAS ISSUED BY A TALATI AFTER VERIFYING THE REVENUE RECORDS , AND FORMED PART OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL , DATED. 0 4.07.2008 , REVEALED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,20,000/ - , VIDE A REGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED. 31.01.2002 . THE CIT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE LTCL HAD WRONGLY TAKEN THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 32,50,775/ - , WHICH WAS SUMMARILY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O WIT HOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATION . THE C I T BEING OF T H E VIEW THAT THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATIONS BY THE A.O HAD RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3) , DATED. 01.12.2011 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE , THEREFORE, INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT . 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT THAT HIS RECORDS, VIZ. INCOME TAX FILE, SALES TAX FILE, ORIGINAL PAPERS OF WORK DONE, PROVIDENT ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 4 FUND FILE & CHALLAN S , BANK FILES, BILL FILES AND PROPERTY RECORDS IN HIS OFFICE AT NA V DE WERE DESTROYED IN THE FLOOD S ON 26.07.2005 . THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORE SAID CLAIM PLACED ON RECORD OF THE CIT THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA WHICH WAS PREPARED BY THE NA V DE TALATI AFTER MAKING INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT THAT AS THE PURCHASE RECORD OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DESTROYED IN FLOODS, THEREFORE, AT THE TIME OF COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS , HIS ACCOUNTANT HAD TAKEN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF A ROUGH NOTING AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT THA T ON ACCOUNT OF A BONAFIDE MISTAKE THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS WRONGLY TAKEN WHILE COMPUTING THE LTCL IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. TH AT IT WAS HOWEVER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT THAT AS THE PROPERTY SOLD BY HIM WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, TH EREFORE , THE SAME NOT BEING A CAPITAL ASSET WAS THUS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF TAX. 6. THE CIT DID NOT FIND FAVOR WITH T H E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD T HAT AS THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) HAD FAILED TO VERIFY THE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, THEREFORE, THE SAME RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY HIM AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT THUS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER O N THE POI NTS RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO BE FRAMED AFRESH. 7. THE A.O I N ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT, THEREIN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE AND ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 5 CALLED UPON HIM TO FURNISH HIS EXPLANATION/SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D BEFORE THE A.O THE FACTS LEADING TO THE MISTAKE ON HIS PART IN TAKING THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT A WRONG FIGURE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT AS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AN A GRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET , THE SAME WAS THUS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF TAX. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8.5 KMS FROM PANVEL MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES, THEREIN PLACED O N THE RECORD OF THE A.O A LETTER FROM UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL, WHICH STATED THAT THE GUT NO. 122/4 IN KANPOLI GRAMPANCHAYAT MAUJE HEDUTNE WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8.5 KMS FROM PANVEL MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. THE A.O TAKING SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL RETUR N OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE CAPITAL LOSS ON THE SALE OF THE LAND WAS SHOWN, THUS DID NOT FIND FAVOR WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS IN THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE A.O FURTHER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE LET TER FROM UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL(SUPRA) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN OBSERVED THAT THE SAME DID NEITHER BEAR ANY SEAL/ANY KIND OF AUTHENTICATION OR THE NAME OF THE OFFICIAL SIGNING IT, NOR WAS SUPPORTED BY ANY DETAILS/MAPS/BAS IS ON WHICH SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE , THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID EVIDENCE WHICH COULD GO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE . THE A.O THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS REJECT ED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (FOR SHORT LTCG) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 38,55,317/ - ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 6 8. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) A COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL, DATED. 23.09. 2 014 , AND SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH A COPY OF THE SAID LETTER WHICH DID BEAR THE OFFICE SEAL OF THE AUTHORITY WAS ALSO FILED WITH THE A. O, THE SAME WAS HOWEVER REJECTED BY HIM ON IRRELEVANT AND FLIMSY GROUNDS. THE CIT(A) IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FACTUAL POSITION CAL L ED FOR THE CASE RECORD S FROM THE A.O, WHICH HOWEVER REVEALED THAT UNLIKE THE LETTER FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM, THE LETTER AV A ILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD DID NOT BEAR ANY OFFICE SEAL. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON BEING CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE THE O RIGINA L LETTER , THEREIN SUBMITTED THROUGH HIS COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE ORIGINAL OF THE LETTER DATED. 23.09.2014. THE COUNSEL ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED. 23.09.2014 WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE A.O, THEREIN SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD MADE THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE LETTER FILED WITH THE A.O DID NOT BEAR ANY SEAL, AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED TO THE NON - AVAILAB ILITY OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER DATED. 23.09.2014, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A FALSE CLAIM BY SUBMITT ING SELF SUITING DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM. THE CIT(A) THUS ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS DECLINED TO ADMIT THE AFORESAID CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD THOUGH RAISED THE CLAIM THAT LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE IN ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 7 THE COURSE OF THE REVI SIONAL PROCEEDINGS WAS CONFINED TO DETERMINING OF THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, THUS THE A.O COULD NOT TRAVERSE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS LIMITED JURISDICTION WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ALSO NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SEC. 263. THE CIT(A) THUS ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS UNDER SEC. 263 HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE AS REGARDS COMPUTATION OF THE TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION, TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THE SAID ISSUE WAS QUA OPEN BEFORE THE A.O, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO RA ISE THE CLAIM THAT THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO TAX. THE LD. A.R IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEO INDUSTRIES AND INSECTICIDES (I) PVT. LTD. (1998) 234 I TR 541 (MAD). THE LD. A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATIONS HAD MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DOUBTS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE LETTER ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL, DATED. 23.09.2014 , AND TH US DECLINED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME . IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS EITHER THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER OR THE FACTUAL POSITION M ENTIONED THEREIN, HAD THUS MOST ARBITRARILY DRAWN ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 8 ADVERSE INFERENCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS THE MATTER REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID LETTER ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL (SUPRA), AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS THEREOF. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THEREIN AVERRED THAT THE LATTER HAD RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE THE AFORESAID CLAIM. THE LD. D.R IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEERING (198 ITR 297) AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD, IN THE CASE OF ITW INDIA (40 SOT 348). THE LD. D.R HOWEVER FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE FOR VERIFYING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL (SUPRA) . 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT T HOUGH BOTH THE A.O AND THE CIT(A) HAD DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID LETTER ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL (SUPRA), HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT EXCEPT FOR DOUBTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAME, NEITHER OF THE AUTHORITIES HAD TAKEN ANY PAIN TO VERIFY THE FACTUAL POSITION BEFORE DUBBING THE SAME AS AN UNAUTHENTIC DOCUMENT. WE THOUGH ARE NOT OBLIVIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSES S EE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL LETTER, BUT THEN, NOW WHEN A ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 9 SE RIOUS ALLEGATION AS REGARDS CHARACTERIZING THE SAID DOCUMENT AS UNAUTHENTIC IS TO BE RAISED AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF TO BE SCRAPPED, THEN A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES BEFORE DRAWING ANY INFERENCE AS REGARDS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER SHOULD HAVE MADE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS FROM THE AUTHORITY WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE ISSUED THE SAID LETTER, VIZ. UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PA NVEL. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE HALF HEARTED APPROACH OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REJECTION OF THE AFORESAID LETTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS ON THEIR PART FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORI TY, VIZ. UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL (SUPRA). WE THUS IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE DUBBING OF THE AFORESAID LETTER ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL (SUP RA), AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AS UNAUTHENTIC, IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS HAVING BEEN MADE FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY, THUS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. WE MAY HOWEVER CLARIFY THAT AS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE AFORESAID LETTER, DATED. 23.09.2014 STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY UP VIBHAGIYA ABHIYANTA, SA. BA. UP VIBHAG, PANVEL (SUPRA), THEREFORE, WE THOUGH ARE REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FRESH ADJUDICA TION FOR MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAID LETTER AND ITS CONTENTS THEREOF, HOWEVER, THE SAME SHALL IN NO WAY BE CONSTRUED AS CONFERRING JURISDICTION WITH THE A.O TO ADMIT ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 10 AND ADJUDICATE ON THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E , WHICH SHALL BE DEALT WITH INDEPENDENTLY BY THE A.O AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE SAME . THE A.O SHALL DURING THE COUR SE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, SUBJECT TO OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS PASS A FRESH ORDER GIVING EFFEC T TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, AS PER LAW. 11 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 .08. 2017 SD/ - SD/ - (R.C SHARMA) (RAVISH SOOD) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED :23 .08 .2017 PS ROHIT KUMAR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / D.R, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ATMARAM N. PATIL ITA NO. 5421/MUM/2016 11