Assistant commissioner of income tax 27(2), MUMBAI V. Shri praneel bhaskaran puthanpura, MUMBAI

ITA 5851/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S ABI RAMA KARTHIKEYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHAL AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 27(2), ROOM NO. 420, 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO.6, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI - 400703 VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN PUTHANPURE, 12, NARI HOUSE, NARAYAN NAGAR, GHATKOPAR, WEST, MUMBAI - 400089 PAN ABDPP3804H ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S. ABI RAMA KARTHIKEYAN , D.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARSHAL AGRAWAL , A.R DATE OF HEARING: 24 .12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 8 .12.2018 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 25, MUMBAI , DATED 06.06.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T. ACT), DATED 28.03.2014. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUN D OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,93,46,511/ - MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF PROVISIONAL VALUATION REPORT PROVIDED BY DVO, ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAD NO POWER U/S 55 A OF THE ACT TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DVO SINCE SECTION 55A WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 01.07.2 012; EVEN THOUGH SUBSECTION (B) (II) OF SECTION 55A CLEARLY STATES THAT THE AO CAN REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSETS TO A VALUATION OFFICER IN ANY CASE WHERE HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF ASSETS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HE FEELS IT NECESSARY, AND THUS WHETHER THE AO WAS NOT COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED IN REFERRING THE ISSUE TO THE DVO AND FRAMING ASSESSMENT ON THAT B ASIS? P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 ON 28.09.2011, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.36,18,050/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT FOUR PLOTS OF LAND WHICH WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE AC QUIRED BY THE N ATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY O F INDIA (FOR SHORT NHAI) ON 21.04.2010. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THREE PLOTS SITUATED AT AWADHAN, DHULE WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 01.04.1981, WHILE FOR ONE PLOT LOCATED AT ARVI WAS PURCHASED BY HIM DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1991 - 92 . INSOFAR, THE PLOT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y 1991 - 92 WAS CONCERNED , THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE COST AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING HIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD C APITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAME BY NHAI. HOWEVER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING THREE PLOTS WHICH WERE PURCHASED PRIOR TO 01.04.1981, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE F AIR M ARKET V ALUE (FOR SHORT FMV) AS ON 0 1.04.1981 ON THE BASIS OF THE V ALUATION REPORT OF A R EGISTERED GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF ( - ) RS.1,35,50,575/ - IN RESPECT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREE PLOTS SITUATED AT AWADHAN , DHULE AS UNDER: SR. NO. DESCRIPTION OF PLOT SALE CONSIDERATION FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 INDEXED COST LTCG/(LTCL) 1. PLOT NO. 7/1, AT AWADHAN,DHULE 85,47,000 17,11,500 1,21,68,765 (36,21,765) 2. PLOT NO. 7/2B AT AWADHAN, DHULE 1,75,01,000 35,04,500 2,49,16,995 (74,15,995) 3. PLOT NO. 7/2A, AT AWADHAN, DHULE 59,29,990 11,87,455 84,42,805 (25,12,815) 91,35,50,575) THE A.O HOLDING A CONVICTION THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED THREE PLOTS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT A RATE WHICH WAS P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN HIGHER THAN THEIR RESPECTIVE FMVS , WHICH HAD THUS RESULTED INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS MADE A REFERENCE UNDER SEC.55A(A) OF THE I.T. AC T TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (FOR SHORT DVO) FOR DETERMIN ING OF THE FMV OF THE SAID THREE PLOTS AS ON 01.04.1981. THE DVO INFORMED THE A.O VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 24.03.2014 THAT THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE THREE PLOTS COULD BE ADOPTED AT RS.1 , 00,00 0 / - , RS. 2 ,00,000/ - AND RS.70,000/ - ON A PROVISIONAL BASIS , SUBJECT TO SUBSTITUTION OF FIGURES PER THE FINAL VALUATION REPORT. SINCE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE GETTING B ARRED BY TIME LIMITATION ON 31.03.2014, THEREFORE, THE A.O ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE THREE PLOTS AS PER THE PROVISIONAL VALUATION REPORT PROVIDED BY THE DVO AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FOUR PLOTS AT RS. 2,93,46,511/ - AFTER ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 54EC. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE A.O HAD TRAVERSED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS JURISDICTION , AND BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED THREE PLOTS WAS LESS THAN THAT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, HAD THUS WRONGLY MADE A REFERENCE UNDER SEC.55A(A) T O THE DVO. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN CLAUSE (A) OF SEC. 55A WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 01.07.2012 , THE A.O COULD MAKE A REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION ONLY WHERE HE WAS OF THE OP INION THAT THE VALUE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN ITS MARKET VALUE. HOWEVER, THE A.O WAS NOT VESTED WITH ANY POWER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO UNDER SEC. 55A , WHERE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN ITS FMV. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO IN HIS CASE WAS MADE BY THE A.O FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORE MENTIONED THREE PLOTS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT A RATE HIGHER THAN ITS FMV, THEREFORE, THE VERY REFERENCE UNDER SEC.55A WAS NOT BACKED BY THE SANCTION OF LAW , AND RESULTANTLY THE DETERMINATION OF THE FMV ON THE BASIS OF THE REFE RENCE WHICH IN ITSELF WAS P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN DEVOID OF ANY FORCE OF LAW COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND WAS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE SAME AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE FMV OF THE AFOREMENT IONED THREE PLOTS AS ON 01.04.1981 BY THE A.O BY MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS NOT AS PER THE MANDATE OF LAW , AND AS SUCH DIRECTED THE A.O TO ADOPT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER THAT WAS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) WHILE CONCLUDING AS HEREINABOVE OBSERVED, AS UNDER: 61.3 IN THIS REGARD, I FIND THAT UNDER INCOME - TAX ACT, THE A.O. HAS HAD NO POWER RELATING TO DETERMINE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHETHER PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 1.7.2012 OR POST THIS AMENDMENT. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN SECTION 55A THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2012 IS REPRODUCED AGAIN AS UNDER: UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A, WHERE IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING O F FICER VALUE OF ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN ITS MARKET VALUE, HE MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF A CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER. UNDER SECTION 55 IN A CASE WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE 1ST APRIL, 1981, THE ASSESSEE HAS THE OPTION OF SUBSTITUTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981 AS THE COST OF THE ASSET. IN SUCH A CASE THE ADOPTION OF A HIGHER VALUE FOR THE COST OF THE ASSET AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE A S ON 1ST APRIL, 1981, WOULD LEAD TO A LOWER AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS BEING OFFERED FOR TAX. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WHERE IN HIS OPINION THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT VARIANCE F R O M THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEREFORE, IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981 IS HIGHER THAN THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON THAT DATE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ENABLED TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. [CLAUSE 20] 6.1.4 APART FROM THE ABOVE EXPRESSED PROVISIONS OF THE I . T. ACT AS IT EXISTED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E., F.Y. 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2011 - 12, RELIANCE OF THE LD. AR IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS IS IN ORDER . HONBLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REFER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE VALUATION AS ON APRIL 1 , 1981 PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, LET ALONE THE ESTIMATION BY SELF 1) MRS. ASHAH BHARAT SHA H VS. ITO (MUM) ITA NO.1716/MUM/ 2010 2) SMT. SARLA N S AKRANEY VS. ITO(MUM)(201 1)130 I TD 167 3) ITO VS. SMT. LALITABENKAPADIA (MUM) (2008) 115 TTJ 938 P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN 4) SAJJAN KUMAR M. HARLALKA VS. JT. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ 974 (2006) (MUM) 5) SMT. KRISHNABAI TINGRE VS. ITO (2006) 103 TTJ 21 6(2006) 101 (PUNE) 6) RASHMIKANT BAXI (HUF) ITA 37 11 AND 6871/MUM/2012 ITAT MUMBAI D BENCH. (2015) 6.1.5 CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND EXISTIN G LEGAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE AO IS NOT CORRECT IN EITHER ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 BY SELF OR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICE R (DVO) FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE GOVT. REGISTERED VALUER BEING OPTED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISIONAL/ ESTIMATED VALUATION REPORT PROVIDED BY THE DVO AND COMPUTATION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) AT RS. 2,93,46,51 1/ - IS DELETED. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED. 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TA TIVE (F OR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD RIGHTLY VACATED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF A REPORT WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY HIM FROM THE DVO DE HORS THE REQUIRED SANCTION OF LAW. THE LD. A.R IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE A.O PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 55A(A) W.E.F 01.07.2012 WAS NOT VESTED WITH ANY JURISDICTION TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FMV OF A PROPERTY IN A CASE W HERE HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FMV OF THE SAME , RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS (2014) 361 ITR 697 (BOM) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES , PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE US , THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREE PLOTS VIZ. (I) PL OT NO.7/1 AT AWATHAN DHULE; (II) PLOT NO. 7/2B AT AWADHAN DHULE; (III) PLOT NO. 7/2A AT AWADHAN DHULE THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE AS THE IR RESPECTIVE COST OF ACQUISITION WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THE SAME BY NHAI WAS HIGHER THAN THE FMV OF THE SAID RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES ON 01.04.1981, HAD THUS ON THE SAID PREMISE MADE A P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN REFERENCE UNDER SEC.55A(A) TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FMV OF THE SAID RESPECTIVE PLOTS. WE FIND THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN C L AUSE (A) OF SEC.55A , WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 01.07.2012 , THE A.O COULD MAKE A REFERENCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.55A TO THE VALUATION OFFICER ONLY IN A CASE WHERE IN HIS O PINION THE VALUE OF THE ASSET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN ITS MARKET VALUE. IT WAS ONLY AS PER THE POST AMENDED SEC.55A THAT THE A.O WAS VESTED WITH THE POWER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WHERE IN HIS OPINION THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FMV . WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREE PLOTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN ITS MARKET VALUE COULD NOT HAVE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING OF THE FMV OF THE SAME BY INVOKIN G OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 55A(A) AS WERE THEN SO AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE . WE ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT AS AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME THE A.O WAS NOT VESTED WITH THE NECESSARY JURISDICTION TO MAKE A REFERENCE UNDER SEC. 5 5A (A) TO THE DVO IN A CASE WHERE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN ITS MARKET VALUE, THEREFORE, THE VERY MAKING OF SUCH REFERENCE BY HIM TO THE DVO AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROVISIONAL/ESTIMATED VALUATION O F THE SAME BY THE LATTER , WERE BOTH BEREFT OF ANY FORCE OF LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW STANDS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS (2014) 360 ITR 697 (BOM) . IN THE SAID CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT TO SEC.55A(A) THAT WAS MADE AVAILABLE ON THE STATUTE W.E.F 01.07.2012 , A REFERENCE UNDER SEC.55A COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LE SS THAN ITS FMV. APART THEREFROM, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC.55A(A) WAS NOT TO BE GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT , AND THE SAME WAS EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 01.07.2012. 7. WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JURISDICTION WHICH SEIZES THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE FORE CONCLUDE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF THE P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN PROVISIONAL/ESTIMATED VALUATION REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE DVO O N A REFERENCE MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 55A(A) IN TRANSGRESSION OF THE SCOPE OF HIS JURISDICTION, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND HAD RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 . 12.2018. S D / - S D / - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 28.12.2018 PS. ROHIT / 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 P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 5851/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI PRANEEL BHASKARAN