APOLLOA HEAT EXCHANGERS PVT. LTD., PALGHAR V. ACIT, CIRCLE - 4, THANE

ITA 5864/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0289 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VIDHYADHAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 133(6); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 5864-5865/ MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 AND 2012-13) APOLLO HEAT EXCHANGERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO. 109, INDO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NO. 2, NAVGHAR VILLAGE , VASAI ROAD(E), PALGHAR-401210 / V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, A WING, 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK, ROAD NO. 16-Z, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE-400604 ./ PAN : AAACA3597D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. V VIDHYADHAR / DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-08-2017 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , BEING IT A NO. 5864- 5865/MUM/2016, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE AP PELLATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 16 TH JUNE, 2016 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)- 3, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A )), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY, APPELLATE PROCEED INGS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATE D 05-03-2015 AND 24-03- 201 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTE R CALLED THE AO) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 2 2. THESE TWO APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSUE OF DISALL OWANCE OF PURCHASES ON THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE ALLEG ED PURCHASES FROM ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS I.E. HAWALA DEALERS W HO HAVE ISSUED BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SUPPLYING ANY MATERIAL PHYSICALLY TO THE ASSESSEE. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS MANUFACTURER OF HEAT EXCHANGERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF IN COME U/S 139(1) ON 28-09- 2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF RS. 5.26 CROR ES AND GROSS PROFITS OF RS. 1.68 CRORES WHICH WORK OUT TO GP OF 31.91%. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E PURCHASES FROM NUTAN METALS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 56,55,569/- WHO I S ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION HAWALA ENTRIES WHEREIN ONLY BOGUS BIL LS ARE ISSUED WITHOUT SUPPLYING ANY MATERIAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF T HE BENEFICIARY OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY THE A O U/S 147 OF THE 1961 ACT BY THE AO BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 23-04-201 3 U/S 148 OF THE 1961 ACT, WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE EN D OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS SUP PLIED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) O F THE 1961 ACT MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NO TICE U/S 148 OF THE 1961 ACT. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE TO SAID NUTAN METALS U/S 133(6) OF THE 1961 ACT WHICH WAS NOT REPLIED BY SAID PARTY. THE ASSESSEE ON BEING SHOW CAUSED BY THE AO SUBMITT ED LEDGER COPIES , PURCHASE BILLS ALONG WITH DELIVERY CHALLANS , STOCK RECORDS ETC. AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS TO NUTAN METALS WERE MADE B Y ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT PURCHASES WERE G ENUINE. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, UTILIZATION OF MATERIAL AND MANUFACTURI NG PROCESS WERE ALL ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 3 EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THERE IS N O ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE SAME BY THE AO SO FAR AS PROVING THE UTILIZATIO N AND CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL SO PURCHASED FOR MANUFACTURING FINISHED GO ODS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO STOCK AND THE BIN CARD SUMMARY OF PURCHASES AND SALE OF THE PARTY WAS ENCL OSED . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DESPITE BEING ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAID PA RTY DID NOT PRODUCE THE SAID PARTY BEFORE THE AO NOR SAID PARTY NUTAN META LS REPLIED TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) ISSUED BY THE AO. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAID PARTY NUTAN METALS HAS ADMITTED BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY SA LE OR PURCHASE TRANSACTION BUT RATHER ONLY BOGUS INVOICES WERE ISS UED , WHICH PROVES THAT PURCHASES SHOWN TO BE MADE FROM NUTAN METALS IS BOG US. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT KEEPING IN VIEW FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE C ASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM GREY MARKET TO TALLY S TOCK AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF STOCK WHILE BOGUS BILLS WERE OBTAI NED FROM NUTAN METALS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE BENEFITED BY WAY OF MARGIN OF GR EY MARKET. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED AND THE AO ESTIMATED GP OF 3 1.91% ON THESE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 56,55,569/- FROM NUTAN METAL AND INCOME OF RS.18,04,692/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-03-2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 R.W .S. 147 OF THE 1961 ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-3-201 5 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE 1961 ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL WITH LEARNED CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-03-2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE 1961 ACT., VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16-06-201 6. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL . THE LEARNED DR WOULD RELY ON THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) TO CONTEND THAT THE ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 4 SAME MAY BE CONFIRMED WHILE NONE APPEARED FOR ASSES SEE DESPITE NOTICE BEING SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED DR AND ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BRIEF FACTS OF T HE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MANUFACTURER OF HEAT EXCHANGERS. THE ASS ESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) ON 28-09-2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN SALES OF RS. 5.26 CRORES AND GROSS PROFITS OF RS. 1.68 CRORES WHICH W ORK OUT TO GP OF 31.91%. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTME NT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM NUTAN METALS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 56,55,569/- WHO IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION HAWALA ENTRIES W HEREIN ONLY BOGUS BILLS ARE ISSUED BY NUTAN METALS WITHOUT SUPPLYING ANY MA TERIAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION EN TRY. THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE 1961 ACT BY THE AO BY ISSUA NCE OF NOTICE DATED 23- 04-2013 U/S 148 OF THE 1961 ACT, WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REASONS FOR RE OPENING WAS SUPPLIED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S 148, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE AS SESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE 1961 ACT MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE 1961 ACT. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE TO SAID NUTAN METALS U/S 133(6) OF THE 1961 ACT WHICH WAS NOT REPLIED BY SAID PARTY. THE ASSESSEE ON BEING SHOW CAUSED BY THE AO SUBMITT ED LEDGER COPIES , PURCHASE BILLS ALONG WITH DELIVERY CHALLANS , STOCK RECORDS ETC. AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS TO NUTAN METALS WERE MADE B Y ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT PURCHASES WERE G ENUINE. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, UTILIZATION OF MATERIAL AND MANUFACTURI NG PROCESS WERE ALL EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO STOCK AND THE BIN CARD SUMMARY OF PURCHASES AND SALE OF THE PARTY WAS ENCLOSED . THUS , UTILIZATION AND ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 5 CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL SO REFLECTED IN ALLEGED PURCHASES FROM NUTAN METALS FOR MANUFACTURING OF FINISHED GOODS STOOD PR OVED WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DESP ITE BEING ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTY NUTAN METALS DID NOT PRODUCE THE SAID PARTY BEFORE THE AO NOR NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE 1961 ACT WAS COMPL IED WITH. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAID PARTY HAS ADMITTED BE FORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY SALE OR PURC HASE TRANSACTION WHICH PROVES THAT PURCHASES SHOWN TO BE MADE FROM NUTAN M ETALS IS BOGUS. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT KEEPING IN VIEW FACTUAL MAT RIX OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM GREY MARKET T O TALLY STOCK AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF STOCK WHILE BOGUS BIL LS WERE OBTAINED FROM NUTAN METALS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE BENEFITED BY WAY O F MARGIN OF GREY MARKET. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED U/S 145(3) AND THE AO ESTIMATED GP OF 31.91% ON THESE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM NUTAN METAL TO THE TUNE OF RS. 56,55,569/- AND INCOME OF RS.18,04,692/- WAS BROUGH T TO TAX BY THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05-03-2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE 1961 ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A). REFERENCE IS DRAWN TO DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMS V. JT. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 10/158 TAXMAN 71 (SC) , WHEREIN HON'BLE LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER : '4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IN A SHORT COMPASS. T HE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE DEALS IN PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ICED THE FOLLOWING DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE : '1. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED AND KEPT ANY QU ANTITATIVE DETAILS/STOCK REGISTER FOR THE GOODS TRADED IN BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD OR DOCUMENT TO VE RIFY THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ABLE TO PREPARE SUCH DETAILS EVEN WITH THE HELP OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED, PURCH ASE BILLS & SALE INVOICES. ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 6 3. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) ARE CLEARLY ATTRACT ED IN THIS CASE. 4. THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 42 LAKHS (APPROX.) IS NOT PROVED WITHOUT ANY DOUBT. 5. THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 13.49 PER CENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT A MATCH TO THE RESULT DECLARED BY THE ITSELF IN THE P REVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. M/S. GEM PLAZA, ENGAGED IN LOCAL SALES OF SIMILA R GOODS DECLARED VOLUNTARILY RATE OF 35 PER CENT IN ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 -98. 7. M/S. DHADDA EXPORTS, ANOTHER ASSESSEE DEALING IN SAME ITEMS, BUT DOING EXPORT BUSINESS DECLARED GP RATE OF 43.8 PER CENT (EVEN WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE VALUE OF EXPORT INCENTIVES) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98.' 5. THE REAFTER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE RESORTED TO BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTI ON 144 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONED SOME COMPARABLE CASES AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE OR LESS HAVING SIMILAR FACTS AS THAT OF M/S. GEM PLAZA WHERE THE GROSS PROFIT HAS BEEN TAKEN AS 35.4 8 PER CENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS 40 PE R CENT. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN BOGUS PURCHASES IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE GROSS PROFITS. 7. IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD MOST OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT FRO M 40 PER CENT TO 35 PER CENT. 8. IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN FURTHE R RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE TO 30 PER CENT. 9. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFOR E US THAT THE INCOME- TAX AUTHOR ITIES WRONGLY HELD THAT APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BOGUS PURCHAS ES, AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE WRONGLY REJECTED. 10. IN OUR OPINION, WHETHER THERE WERE BOGUS PURCHASES OR NOT, IS A FIN DING OF FACT, AND WE CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE SAME IN THIS APPEAL. AS R EGARDS THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, COGENT REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE INCOME-TAX AU THORITIES FOR DOING SO, AND WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 11. IT IS WELL- SETTLED THAT IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THERE I S ALWAYS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK. NO DOUBT THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED SHOU LD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME EVEN IN A BES T JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, AND SHOULD NOT ACT TOTALLY ARBITRARILY, BUT THERE IS NECESSARILY SOME AMOUNT O F GUESS WORK INVOLVED IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, AND IT IS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHO IS T O BLAME AS HE DID NOT SUBMIT PROPER ACCOUNTS. IN OUR OPINION, T HERE WAS NO ARBITRARINESS IN THE PRESENT CASE ON TH E PART OF THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES. THUS, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THIS AP PEAL, AND IT IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. NO COSTS.' ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 7 THUS , AS CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PR OVED THAT THE SAID MATERIAL WAS DULY RECORDED IN STOCK RECORDS AND UTI LIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF THE SAID MATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURING FINISHED GOODS STOOD PROVED WHICH REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY REVENUE EVEN BY LEARNED DR BEFORE US. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE , THE SAID PARTY NUTAN METALS HAS CO NFESSED BEFORE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCO MMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT SUPPLYING ANY MATERIAL PHYSICALLY WHEREIN ONLY BOGU S BILLS ARE ISSUED . THE SAID PARTY HAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED BILLS TO THE TUNE O F RS. 56,55,569/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY REVE NUE FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE BE NEFICIARY OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDED BY NUTAN METALS. NOTIC ES U/S 133(6) BY THE AO TO THE SAID PARTY REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH BY NU TAN METALS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAID PARTY BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS LAY ON I T UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE 1961 ACT IN THIS CASE. THE CONCLUSION OF THE CUMULA TIVE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED ACTUAL MATER IAL FROM GREY MARKET AT LOWER PRICE AND TO SAVE ON VAT , GREY MARKET PROFIT S ETC. HAS OBTAINED BOGUS INVOICES FROM THE SAID PARTY NAMELY NUTAN METALS. T HE CONSUMPTION/UTILIZATION OF THE MATERIAL REFLECTED BY THE SAID BOGUS INVOICES STOOD PROVED WHILE THE GP ALREADY DECLARED IS 31.9 1% WHICH INCLUDED THESE ALLEGED PURCHASES , WHICH HAS ALREADY SUFFERED TAX. END OF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE WILL BE BEST SERVED IN THIS IF ADDITION IS SUS TAINED TO THE TUNE OF 6% OF THE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 56,55,569 SO MADE FROM NUTAN METALS, WHICH WILL LEAD TO CONFIRMATION/UPHOLDING OF ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,39,334/-. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO . 5864/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ITA 5864 AND 5865/MUM/2016 8 8. OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 5864/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IN ITA NO. 5865/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AS THE FA CTS ARE SIMILAR. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 5865/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO . 5864/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND ITA NO. 5865/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH AUGUST 2017. # $% &' 17-08-2017 ( ) SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 17-08.2017 [ !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. 9 / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. <=( >>?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, < > //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI