ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. KANTILAL P SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 6216/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9450 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV M SHAH
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6216 /MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ACIT-25(2), ROOM NO.108, 1 ST FLOOR, BLDG. NO.C-11, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. SHRI KANTILAL P SHAH, PROP:-M/S PRINCE DECOWARE INDUSTRIES, 701, BHAVIK DARSHAN, ROKADIA LANE, MANDPESHWAR ROAD, BORIWALI (WEST), MUMBAI-400103 ( / REVENUE) ( !'# /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO. ACJPS8637G $ % & ' / DATE OF HEARING : 18/09/2017 & ' / DATE OF ORDER: 26/09/2017 ! / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV !'# ! / ASSESSEE BY SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/07/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 11,38,721/- MADE ON THE GROUND OF EXCESS COMMISSION PAID WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT SUCH COMMISSION WAS PAID IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, DEFENDED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER BY ADVANCING ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SANJIV M. S HAH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IN HAND WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER FO UR YEARS AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FOLLOWED THE DECI SION OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2010-11. THIS FACTUAL ASSERTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL WAS NOT CONTROVERTED B Y THE REVENUE. ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 3 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT ED THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, VIDE ORDER DA TED 26/05/2017 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS KANTILAL P. SHAH (THE PRESENT ASSESSEE) HELD AS UNDER:- CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 22/04/2013 OF CIT(A)-35 ,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.A SSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORTANT RE SELLING OF HARDWARE,FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15/10/2010,D ECLARING INCOME OF RS. 48, 58,856/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT, ON 31/01/2013, DETERMINING HIS INCOME A T RS. 86.43 LAKHS. 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT HOLDING THAT REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT AND ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WAS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962(RULES).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 17.2 2%, THAT LAST YEAR IT HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 17.89%. HE DIRECT ED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE WORKING OF ITEM-WISE CLOSING STOCK AND PRODUCE ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON STOCK REGISTER. AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED BILLS OF PURCHASE AND SALES FOR A FEW MONTHS STATING THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE ALL THE BOOKS AND BILLS DUE TO HEAVY VOLUME, THAT THE A SSESSEE INFORMED THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING STOCK REGISTER BUT SAME WAS NOT RELIABLE.IN ABSENCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO HELD THAT, BOOK RESUL TS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE. INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT, HE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND DETERMINE D THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 20%. FINALLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS .27.40 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD UNDER-R EPORTED GROSS PROFIT. ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 4 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA)AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,THE FAA HELD THAT THE AO COULD INV OKE SECTION 145 ONLY IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE EITHER INCOMPLET E OR INCORRECT,THAT HE DID NOT EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145,TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED PURCHASE AND SALES BILLS WITH LEDGER ACCOU NT,THAT THE AO HAD ESTIMATED GP AT THE RATE OF 20%, THAT HE HAD NOWHER E MENTIONED THAT THE PURCHASE VALUE AND THE SALE VALUE WERE NOT CORRECTL Y RECORDED IN THE LEDGER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THERE WAS N EGATIVE GP IN CASE OF A FEW ITEMS, THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THE BOOK RESULTS. HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT O F LOWER GP. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR ODUCED STOCK REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE AO,THAT HE HAD ALSO NOT PRODUCED ALL BILLS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE FAA HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES,THAT HE SHOULD HAVE CONFRONTED THE AO WIT H THE NEW EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM,THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY REJECTE D THE BOOK RESULTS.THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THA T NO NEW EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE FAA, THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY. 2009-10(ITA/4 891/MUM/20211 DATED 12/ 01/2017). 5. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELIBERATED UPON THE SIMILAR ISSUE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2009 -10(SUPRA), IN FOLLOWING MANNER: 3.BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE WORK ING OF ITEM-WISE CLOSING STOCK AND PRODUCE ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BILLS FOR PURCHASE AND SELLS OF FEW MONTHS UNDER THE PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE ALL TH E BOOKS AND BILLS FILES DUE TO HEAVY VOLUME. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO P RODUCE AT LEAST THE STOCK REGISTER TO VERIFY THE STOCK QUANTITY AND BAS IS OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK DECLARED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE STAT ED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE STOCK REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED BUT THE SAME WAS NOT TRACEABLE NOW. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ALL THE BILLS AND ST OCK REGISTER FOR VERIFICATION, IN SPITE BEING SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DO SO, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT @22% ON ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 5 THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THE SAME COMES TO RS. 1,60,21,1 72/-. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 1,30,29,163/-, THE AO BROUGHT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 29,92,009/- XXXXX 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT HIS BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJ ECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS HE HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT HE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK REGISTER AND ONLY THE CLOSING STOCK INVENTORY WAS TAKEN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATE OF GP @22% IS NOTHING B UT MERE GUESS WORK. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IF THE AO WANTED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HE OUGHT TO HAVE COMPARED THE PURCHASE BILLS AND SALES BILLS WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS EITHER INFLA TION OF PURCHASE OR SUPPRESSION OF SALES WHICH WAS NOT DONE. FURTHER TH E NET PROFIT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHER WHEN COMPARED TO LAST YEA R. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,92,009/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOWER GP. 4.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PAID COMMISSION BY MEANS OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE CHEQUES W ERE CLEARED IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION AGENTS AS SEEN FROM THE BANK STA TEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY WITH COMMISSION AGENTS TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION AT A LES S RATE AND THE AO MADE ONLY ADHOC DISALLOWANCE BY COMPARING THE COMMI SSION RATE WITH THE EARLIER YEARS. EVEN THOUGH, THE MAJOR PORTION O F THE COMMISSION WAS REMAINING UNPAID AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE ASSESS EE PAID THE SAME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRE CTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,42,521/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF E XCESS COMMISSION. 5.BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 200 7-08 (ITA NO. 3737/MUM/2010) AND A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA NO. 4389/MUM/2 011) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUES AROSE BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE A.Y. 2007-08 AND A.Y. 2008-09. IN RESPECT OF GROUND OF APPEAL SIMILAR TO 1ST GROUND I N THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PA RTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD , WE FIND THAT THE MAIN BASIS FOR REJECTING THE TRADING RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO WAS THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTE R AND THE ENTIRE PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE ASSE SSEES CONTENTION HAD BEEN THAT, IT HAS MAINTAINED DETAILED LEDGER AC COUNT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND ON SAMPLE BASIS SALE AND PURCHASE BILLS FO R FEW MONTHS WERE FILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO HUGE VOLUME IT WAS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE ENTIRE BILLS, BUT IF THE AO WOULD HAVE INSISTED, THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED/ PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. WE AGREE WITH SUCH A ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 6 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE, FIRSTLY, THE A O LOOKING TO THE HUGE VOLUME OF BILLS AND DETAILS COULD HAVE ASKED FOR PU RCHASE AND SALE BILLS ON TEST CHECK BASIS I.E., ON SAMPLE BASIS TO TALLY AS PER THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE; SECONDLY, THE AO HAS APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 25% WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E ASSESSEES PAST HISTORY OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL OR COMPARABILITY; BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS PRO FIT RATIO WAS 19.99% AS COMPARED TO 18% IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND OVERALL NE T PROFIT HAS ALSO INCREASED. THUS, THERE MAY NOT BE ANY PRIMA FACIE I NFERENCE THAT ASSESSEES PROFIT IS NOT IN COMMENSURATE WITH THE E ARLIER YEARS SO AS TO DOUBT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE; AND LASTLY, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE GROSS PRO FIT ON THE BASIS OF SELECTED SAMPLES IS ALSO NOT A CORRECT APPROACH AND IF GOING BY THE TRADING RESULT AND GROSS PROFIT OF VARIOUS ITEMS, I T CAN BE VERY WELL HELD THAT ASSESSEES PROFIT AND TRADING RESULTS ARE MUCH BETTER THIS YEAR, HENCE, THE OBSERVATION AND THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A ) CANNOT BE DEVIATED FROM AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS AFFIRMED. THUS, G ROUND NO. 1 AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE OR DER OF THE FAA AND HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MAKING AD HOC ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LO W GP.WE WANT TO MENTION THAT THOUGH THE AO HAD ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RULE 46A, YET,IT WAS NOT MENTIONED AS TO WHICH DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED B EFORE THE FAA THAT WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO.WE DECIDE FI RST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL (GOA-1&2)AGAINST THE AO. 6. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 0.44 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS COMMISSION PAID. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DEALT WITH THE ISSUE W HILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2009-10(SUPRA).WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER AND IT READS AS UNDER: 3.1 THE AO NOTICED FROM THE P&L ACCOUNT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD SHOWN COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 29,70,083/-. THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID ALONG WITH DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PAYEES AND THE BASIS FOR T HE QUANTIFICATION OF SUCH COMMISSION PAID. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PARTYW ISE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID AND THE DETAILS OF TDS MADE THEREON . THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 15,71,986/- @3% AND IN TH E F.Y. 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 6, 38,059/- WHICH WAS @2.5% OF THE SALES MADE THROUGH SALESMEN. IN THE F. Y. 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN COMMISSION PAYMENT @3.25% AND RE DUCED THE SAME TO 3% IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND THEN SUBSTANTIALLY INCREA SED THE RATE OF ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 7 COMMISSION TO 4%. THE AO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION TH E FACT THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED THE SAM E AND PAYMENT COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE TO PERSONS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SOME PORTION OF SUCH COMMISSION IS OUTSTANDING ON T HE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXCESS COMMIS SION PAID @1% IN COMPARISON TO F.Y. 2005-06 AND THEREBY ADDED RS. 7, 42,521/-. 6.1 IN RESPECT OF GROUND OF APPEAL SIMILAR TO 2ND G ROUND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PAR TIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT AO HA S MADE AN AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE ON THIS SCORE ON THE GROUND THAT FIRST LY, THERE IS ENHANCEMENT OF RATE OF COMMISSION FROM 2.5% TO THE RATE OF 3.25%; SECONDLY, SOME OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS ARE ALSO TH E RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A BASIS DRAWN BY THE AO FOR MAKING T HE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR THE REASON THAT, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS CLARIFIED THAT OVERALL RATE OF COMMISSION PAID IS @ 3% ON THE TOTA L TURNOVER AND NOT 3.25% AND THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID UNIFORMLY TO ALL THE PARTIES INCLUDING THE RELATIVES. OUT OF 11 PARTY, ONLY 2 AR E RELATIVES, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ANY UNREASONABLE PAYMENT HAVE B EEN MADE TO THE RELATIVES AS COMPARED TO THE OUTSIDERS. SUCH AN AD- HOC DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUST AINED AND FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS THUS, AFFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUN D NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL, WE DECIDE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED . 2.2. WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE TRIB UNAL AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEAL), WHEREIN, THE ADDITION OF ` 10.44 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS COMMISSION WAS MADE BY THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE NEITHER BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY FACTS NOR ANY CONTRA RY DECISION. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISI ON OF THE ITA NO.6216/MUM/2014 KANTILAL P. SHAH 8 TRIBUNAL THAT TOO IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AFFIRMED, RESULTING INTO DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 18/09/2017. SD/- SD/- ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ % MUMBAI; ) DATED : 26/09/2017 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,-. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1 1 $ 2 ( +, ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 1 1 $ 2 / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 45 / ! , 1 +,' +! 6 , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7' 8% / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, 04, / //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI