M/s. J.R. PROPERTIES, MUMBAI V. ITO-21(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6003/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1336 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: USHA GAIKWADLD
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL LD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 68; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.6003/MUM/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M / S. J.R. PROPERTIES 112, PRIME PLAZA, J.V. PATEL COMPOUND B.M. ROAD, ELPHINSTONE WEST MUMBAI-400 013. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 21(1)(5) ROOM NO.120, 1 ST FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012. '# ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAFFJ-0934-K ( !#% /APPELLANT ) : ( &'#% / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL-LD.AR RE VENUE BY : MS. USHA GAIKWADLD. SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 09/12/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/12/2020 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1.1 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEES B OOKS AND ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE T HEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED IS FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY , THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF THAT ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 2 PREVIOUS YEAR. A PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED TO THE S AID SECTION BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01/04/2013 TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND THE SUM SO CREDITED CONSISTS OF SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY, SHARE CAPITAL, SHARE PREMIUM ETC., THE EXPLA NATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY UNLESS THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME SUCH CREDIT IS RECORDED ALSO OFFERS AN E XPLANATION ABOUT NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUM SO CREDITED AND SUCH EXPLA NATION IS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. HOWEVER, THIS PROVISO IS APPLICABL E ONLY FROM AY 2013-14 AND THE SAME IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AS HELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [80 TAXMANN.COM 272]. THE SAID POSITION HAS ALSO BEEN REITERATED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITS RECE NT DECISION TILTED AS GAURAV TRIYUGI SINGH V/S ITO (ITA NO.1750 OF 207, D ATED 22/01/2020) WHICH ALSO CONSIDER ITS EARLIER DECISION OF PR.CIT V/S VEEDHATA TOWERS PVT. LTD. (2018 403 ITR 415). MORE PERTINENTLY, THE SAID PROVISO IS NOT, AT ALL, APPLICABLE IN CASE OF UNSECURED LOANS OR DEPOS ITS. 1.2 IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT TO AVOID THE RIGORS OF SECTION 68, THE ASSESSEE MUST PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS / INVESTORS TO ADVANCE SUCH MONIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ONCE THESE THREE INGREDIENTS ARE SHOWN TO BE FULFIL LED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PRIMARY ONUS CASTED UPON HIM, IN THIS REGARD, C OULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ONUS WOULD SHI FT UPON REVENUE TO DISLODGE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY BRINGING ON RECORD MATERIAL EVIDENCES AND UNLESS THIS ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE, NO ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED U/S 68. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 3 EXPORTS P. LTD. [319 ITR 5], DISMISSING REVENUES APPEAL, OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 2. CAN THE AMOUNT OF SHARE MONEY BE REGARDED AS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF IT ACT, 1961? WE FIND NO MERIT IN THI S SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY I S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAME S ARE GIVEN TO THE AO, THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR I NDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WI TH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. 3. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS DI SMISSED. THE RATIO OF SAID DECISION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FO LLOWED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES IN CATENA OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENTS. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED [8 0 TAXMANN.COM 272] & SUBSEQUENTLY IN CIT VS. ORCHID INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [88 TAXMANN.COM 502]. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE SAID DECISION IN PR. CIT V/S ADAMINE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [107 TAXMANN.COM 84] AGAINST WHICH REVENUES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH IS REPORTE D AT 107 TAXMANN.COM 85. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION OF DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN PR. CIT V/S HIMACHAL FIBERS LTD. [98 TAXMANN.COM 72] AGAINST WHICH REVENUES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH IS REPORTE D AT 98 TAXMANN.COM 173. SIMILAR IS THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN PR. CIT V/S CHAIN HOUSE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [98 TAXMANN.COM 47] AGAINST WHICH REVENUES SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON 18/0 2/2019 WHICH IS REPORTED AT 103 TAXMANN.COM 435. SIMILAR IS THE REC ENT DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT V/S AMI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 4 LTD. [ITA NO. 1231 OF 2017, DATED 29/01/2020) WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS RECENT DECISION TITLED AS PR.CIT VS. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. [412 ITR 161]. 1.3 PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT IS TRITE LAW THAT NO ADD ITIONS COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF MERE DOUBTS, CONJECTURES OR SURMISES. ONCE THE PRIMARY ONUS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRANSACTIONS IS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON REVENUE TO DISLODGE THE ASS ESSEES CLAIM AND SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGATIONS WITH CORROBORATIVE EVI DENCES. UNTIL & UNLESS THIS EXERCISE IS UNDERTAKEN, THE ADDITIONS WOULD NO T BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. LASTLY, AS A PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUST ICE, THE ADVERSE MATERIAL BEING USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MUST BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME WAS TO BE PROV IDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD RESULT INTO VI OLATION OF ASSESSEES SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS TO DEFEND HIS STAND IN THE MATTE R. 2.1 KEEPING IN MIND THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION, W E FIND THAT THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2010-11 AND CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-33, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFER RED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-33/RG.21/337/17-18 DATED 16/08/2019 IN SUSTAINING CERTAIN ADDITIONS U/S 68. THE ONLY GROUND PRESSED B EFORE US IS GROUND NO.2, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT RS.4, 00,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT - A. BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IN AS M UCH AS, THE LD ASSESSING ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 5 OFFICER RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BHAWARLAL J AIN WITHOUT GRANTING THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM. B. BY OVERLOOKING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISH ED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS UNSECURE D LOAN TAKEN. C. BY TAKING AN ADVERSE VIEW IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED BOGUS UNSECURED LOAN ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE LOAN PARTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT WAS THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER W HO WAS RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLIER PARTIES AND AS SUCH WERE HIS WITNESS. IT WAS FOR THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR C ROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. D. THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED ON INFERENCE RAISED A GAINST THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMIS ES AND NOT ON ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. E. BY OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE EXCERPTS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BHANWARLAL JAIN PROVIDED DOES NOT FIND ANY MENTION OF THE APPELLANT OR THE FIRM I.E. REGENT DIAMOND FROM WHOM ALLEGED BOGUS UN SECURED LOAN WAS TAKEN. AS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CERTAIN AD DITIONS U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.400 LACS STATED TO BE TAKEN FROM AN ENTITY NAMELY M/S REGENT DIAMOND ALLEGEDLY CONTROLL ED AND MANAGED BY ONE SHRI BHANWAR LAL JAIN 2.2 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE (AR), DRAWING OUT ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS AS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, ASSAILED THE ADDITIONS AS SUSTAINED BY LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS, THE COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE SAM E HAS DULY BEEN DELIBERATED UPON AND THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION HAS ALREADY BEEN ENUMERATED BY US IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLEADED FOR D ISMISSAL OF APPEAL. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, OUR ADJUDICATION TO THE SUBJE CT MATTER OF APPEAL WOULD BE AS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 6 3.1 THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM IS STATED TO B E ENGAGED AS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). HOWEVER, THE CAS E WAS REOPENED AND AN ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 28/12/2017 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH IMPUGNED ADDI TIONS OF RS.400 LACS. 3.2 PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM ADIT (INVESTIGATION), IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF U NSECURED LOAN FROM AN ENTITY NAMELY M/S REGENT DIAMOND. THIS ENTITY WAS A LLEGEDLY CONTROLLED & MANAGED BY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER SHRI BHAN WAR LAL JAIN. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 31/03/2017 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AS WELL AS U/S 142(1) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID UNSE CURED LOAN. 3.3 THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING THAT INTEREST WAS PAID ON THE SAID LOAN AFTER DEDUCTION OF DUE TDS, STATED THAT THE LO AN WAS TAKEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. TH E ASSESSEE DENIED HAVING KNOWN SHRI BHANWAR LAL JAIN AND HAVING CONNE CTION WITH ANY OF HIS ENTITIES. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT T HAT THE LOAN WAS ALREADY REPAID 3 YEARS BACK THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND TH EREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFICATION TO TREAT THE SAME AS NON- GENUINE. AT THE SAME TIME, LD. AO WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE STATEMENT OF BHANWAR LAL JAIN GROUP AS BEING RELIED UPON BY LD. AO TO DRAW A DVERSE INFERENCE. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PERSONS MAKING THE STATEME NT WAS ALSO DEMANDED. 3.4 IN SUPPORT OF TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE FILED T HE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS: - ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 7 1. COPY OF ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION OF M/S. REGENT DI AMOND 2. BANK STATEMENT SHOWING RECEIPT OF PAYMENT THRO UGH BANKING CHANNELS 3. PHOTOCOPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE AY 2010-11 4. COPY OF PROFIT/LOSS A/C AND BALANCE SHEET FOR A .Y. 2010-11 IN THE AFORESAID BACKGROUND, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED THE IDENTITY OF LOAN CREDITOR, ITS CREDITWOR THINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSLATIONS. 3.5 HOWEVER, REJECTING THE SAME, LD.AO TREATED THE LOAN AS UNSECURED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED THE SAME U/S 68. CONSEQUENTLY , INTEREST PAID AGAINST THE SAME WAS ALSO REDUCED FROM WORK-IN-PROG RESS. 4.1 DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, A REMAND REPORT W AS CALLED FROM LD.AO DIRECTING HIM TO PROVIDE ALL THE STATEMENTS R ECORDED FROM THE ENTITY OF SHRI BHANWAR LAL JAIN WHICH WAS BEING REL IED UPON FOR MAKING ADDITION. THE LD. AO WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROVIDE C ROSS-EXAMINATION OF RELEVANT PERSONS. 4.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT SUMM ONS ISSUED TO M/S REGENT DIAMOND AS WELL AS SHRI BHANWAR LAL JAIN WAS RETURNED BACK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME WERE SERVED THOUGH AFFIXTURE. THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES AND NOT ACCEPTING THE SUMMONS INTENTIONALLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE STATED PARTY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HENCE, THE ADDITIONS WERE JUSTIFIED. 4.3 GOING BY THE FINDINGS OF LD. AO, THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED WHICH HAS LED TO ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX AS ENUMERATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, IT IS QUITE DISCERNIBLE THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN AS ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 8 EARLY AS IN AY 2010-11 WHEREAS THE INQUIRIES BEING CONDUCTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE AS LATE AS IN 2019. THE AS SESSEE HAD FILED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF AC COUNT CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENTS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LENDER , ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS ETC. TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDE R, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS TH E PRIMARY ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER, PROVING IT S CREDITWORTHINESS AND TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS D ULY BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO P ROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE AS NOTED IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS. THIS IS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST ON LOA N AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS. ANOTHER PERTINENT FACT TO BE NOTED IS THAT THE LOAN STOOD FULLY SQUARED UP 3 YEARS BACK AND THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE NO OCCASION TO TREAT THE SAME AS ASSESSEES INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTY DID NOT RESPOND AFTER SUCH A LONG PERIOD, THE SAME COULD NO T BE THE SOLE BASIS TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BY FUR NISHING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE ONUS HAD SHIFTED ON REVE NUE TO DISLODGE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY BRINGING ON RECORD COGENT EVIDE NCES. THE ASSESSEE, ALL ALONG, DENIED HAVING ANY BUSINESS CON NECTION WITH THE TAINTED GROUP. EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE PARTY D ID NOT RESPOND TO SUMMONS, THERE IS NOTHING ADVERSE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, CONJECTURES OR SURMISES. THERE IS NOTHING IN REVENU ES ARMORY WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY CASH GOT EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID ENTITY WHILE ACCEPTING AS WELL AS WHILE RE PAYING THE UNSECURED LOAN. ITA NO.6003/MUM/2019 M/S. J.R. PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 9 6. THEREFORE, ON THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES. HENCE, BY DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, WE ALLOW GROUND THU S RAISED BEFORE US. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INTEREST AS CLAIMED ON THE LOANS WOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE FROM WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09TH DECEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09/12/2020 S R.PS, JAISY VARGHESE ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !#% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'#% / THE RESPONDENT 3. - ( ! ) / THE CIT(A) 4. - / CIT CONCERNED 5. ./& 0 , ! 0 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /12 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.