ACIT CIR 7(3)(1), MUMBAI V. ESSEL INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6050/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9932 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATHA SWAMY
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 143(2)

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6050/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) ROOM NO. 142, G, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400020 VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. 135, CONTINENTAL BUILDING , DR.ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 4000018 PAN AAACP6095M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANJUNATHA SWAMY, D.R RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 16 .09.2019 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 0 .09.2019 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) - 13, MUMBAI, DATED 23.07.2018 , WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 , DATED 2 8.03.2016 . THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12,30,75,760/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SECTION 14A WAS INTENDED TO COVER THOSE SITUAT ION WHERE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPT INCOME BEING EARNED IN FUTURE AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR EXEMPT INCOME TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF A PARTICULAR YEAR FOR THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE TRIGGERED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 12,30,75,760/ - MADE TO THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER MAT PROVISION U/S. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. 115JB U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SECTION 14A WAS INTENDED TO COVER THOSE SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPT INCOME BEING EARNED IN FUTURE AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR EXEMPT INCO ME TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF A PARTICULAR YEAR FOR THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE TRIGGERED'. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES, PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 ON 29.09.2013, DECLARING ITS TOTAL LOSS A T RS.3 4,82,35,219/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT . 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2013 , HAD SHOWN INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1356.35 CRORES. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.150 / - . AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A R.W.S 8D WHILE COMPUTING ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, IT WAS CALLED UPON BY THE A.O TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVIS ION MAY NOT BE MADE IN ITS HANDS . IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT I T WAS A FLAGSHIP COMPANY OF ESSE L GROUPS INFRA BUSINESS , AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES VIZ. ROADS, AIRPORTS, RECREATION FACILI TIES, WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, UTILITIES ETC. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE A PROJECT WOULD BE AWARDED, THEN AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS IT WOULD CREATE A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE (SPV) FOR EXECUTING THE PROJECT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , THAT AS THE PROJECTS WOULD BE MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO BE EXECUTED BY CREATING A SEPARATE SPV, THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENTS THEREIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS WHICH WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERC IAL EXPEDIEN CY AND NOT WITH AN INTENT OR PURPOSE TO EARN ANY EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A WAS CALLED FOR IN ITS HANDS. HOWEVER, THE A.O AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE INVEST MENTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED FROM AN AMOUNT OF RS.1167.96 CRORES IN THE LAST YEAR TO RS.1356.35 CRORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ALSO, IT WAS NOTICED BY HIM THAT MOST OF THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. GROUP COMPANIES. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID F ACTS, THE A.O HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE INVESTMENTS OF THE AFORESAID SUBSTANTIAL MAGNITUDE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT AVAILING SERVICES OF SKILLED , PROFESSIONAL AND KNOWLEDGEAB LE PERSONNEL. APART THERE FROM, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAN POWER REQUIRED FOR RENDERING THE AFORESAID SERVICES WAS NOT FREELY AVAILABLE , AND HENCE EXPENDITURE WAS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED FOR PROCURING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, BACKED BY HIS AFORESAID CO NVICTION , THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2) (III) WOULD SQUARELY BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. (I) THAT, IT HAD SUBSTANTIAL SELF OWNED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS; AND (II) THAT, THE NETTING OF INTEREST FOR COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE, WERE ALSO TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, THE A.O WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.14A R.W. RULE 8D(2) AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,30,75,760/ - , AS UNDER: SR . NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1. THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATING TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME RULE 8D(2)(I). NIL 2. EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT AN AMOUNT COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING FORMULA, NAMELY: A X B C 162500000 X 12,62,15,50,000 34,20,16,00,000 5,99,68,010 A = THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST OTHER THAN AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCLUDED IN CLAUSE (I) INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RS.162500000/ - . B = THE AVERAGE OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OPENING = RS.11,67,96,00,000/ - OPENING = RS.13,56,35,00,000/ - AVERAGE OF INVESTMENT = RS.12,62,15,50,000 C= THE AVERAGE OF TOTAL ASSETS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RULE 8D (2)(II) OPENING = RS.30,39,45,00,000/ - CLOSING = RS.38,00,87,00,000/ - AVERAGE OF INVESTMENT = RS.34,20,16,00,000/ - 3. I.AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS OPENING BALANCE OF INVESTMENTS + CLOSING BALANCE OF INVESTMENTS / 2 OPENING = RS.11,67,96,00,000/ - CLOSING =RS.13,56,35,00,000/ - AVERAGE OF INVESTMENT = RS.12,62,15,50,000/ - II. DISALLOWANCE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE HALF PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. III. 0.5% OF 12,62,15,50,000/ - 6,31,07,750 TOTAL DISALLOWANCE 12,30,75,760 P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O AFTER INTER ALIA MAKING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. R ULE 8D ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.23,48,14,110/ - UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS. THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 115 JB OF THE ACT, AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SEC.14A R.W.S 8D WAS WORKED OUT BY THE A.O AT RS.24,38,41,955/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.150 / - THAT WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALSO, THE CIT(A) WAS PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT AS IT HAD S UFFICIENT OWN FUNDS I.E RS.1740.4 CRORES AS ON 31.03.2012 AND RS.2966.68 CRORES AS ON 31.03.2013 FOR MAKING OF INVESTMENTS OF RS.538.76 CRORES AS ON 31.03.2012 AND RS.714.84 CRORES AS ON 31.03.2013, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST DISALLOWANCE WAS EVEN OTHERWISE CALLED FOR UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE ACT. ALSO , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A), THAT AS ONLY INVESTMENTS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME WERE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A, THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN DEBENTURES AND FOREIGN COMPANIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AT THE TIME OF THE QUAN TIFICATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (2017) 82 TAXMAN.COM 415 (DEL) (SB), THEREIN CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 115JB (2) OF THE ACT WAS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE COMP UTATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 14A R.W.RULE 8D. 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RESPONDENT DESPITE HAVING BEEN PUT TO NOTICE AS REGARDS THE HEARING O F THE APPEAL HAD NEITHER PUT UP AN APPEARANCE BEFORE US , NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING AN ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. ACCORDINGLY, BEING LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE , WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AS PER RULE 25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963 AFTER HEARING THE APPELLANT REVENUE AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) TOOK US THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R , THAT THE A.O HAD RIGHTLY W ORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROCEDURE ENVISAGED IN SEC. 14A R.W RULE 8D. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IS SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (DEL) . IN THE AFORESAID CASE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ENVISAGED IN SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID C ASE, HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER : BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN SEC. 14A OR RULE 8D BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE TAX EXEMPT INCOME IS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE W INDOW FOR DISALLOWANCE IS INDICATED IN SEC.14A, AND IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME. THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME SURELY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUN T AS HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. ALSO, WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR VIEW HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. EMPIRE PACKAGE (P) LTD. (2017) 81 TAXMAN.COM 108 (P & H). APART THERE FROM, WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR VIEW HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF VIZ. (I) TATA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ITO (2010) 181 TTJ 600 (MUM): AND (II) FUTURE CORPORATE RESOURCES LTD. VS. DCIT (2017) 85 TAXMAN 190 (MUM). ACCORDINGLY, FINDING OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A CANNOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME, WE UPHO LD HIS ORDER TO THE SAID EXTENT . ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 14A TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXEM PT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.150 / - IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 8 . WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,30,75,760/ - WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SEC.115JB OF THE ACT. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O WHILE WORKING OUT THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC.115JB HAD ADDED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM UNDER SEC.14A R.W.RULE 8D. ON AP PEAL, THE CIT(A) HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.115JB (2) WAS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE CIT(A) HAD FORTIFIED HIS AFORESAID VIEW BY DRAWING S UPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (2017) 82 TAXMAN.COM 415 (DEL) (SB). 10. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AFORESAID ISSUE IN THE BACKDROP OF THE OBSERVA TIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE LD. D.R BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARE LY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENTS P VT. LTD. (201&) 82 TAXMAN.COM 415 (DEL) (SB). AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD OBSERVED THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 115JB (2) WAS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE COMPUTATION AS CO NTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D. ACCORDINGLY, FINDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION , AS BEING IN CONFORM ITY WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIREET INVESTMENTS PVT . LTD. (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE SAME . AS SUCH, FINDING NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT UNDER SEC.14A R.W. RULE 8D WAS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SEC.115JB OF THE ACT, THE SAME IS REJECTED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 11. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 .09.2019 S D / - S D / - ( N.K.PRADHAN ) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 0 .09.2019 PS. ROHIT P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 6050/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 A CIT, CIRCLE - 7(3)(1) VS. M/S ESSE L INFRAPROJECTS LTD. / 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