ITO11(2)(1), MUMBAI V. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 6250/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 129 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9927 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rectification of order; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 154; 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.6250/MUM/2017 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 11(2)(1) ROOM NO.425, AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. FLAT NO. 19, 3 RD FLOOR LALITA SOCIETY, GOKHALE ROAD VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI-400 049. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAHCS-1006-N ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR- LD.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA-LD. AR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/07/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/08/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2010-11 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- 2 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 18/IT-11/ITO-11(2)(1)/16-17 DATED 09/06/2017 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY ON THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME THAT CAME TO LIGHT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 133A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ONLY AFTER THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGED TO TAX ON ACCOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY ONLY AFTER THE ADDITIONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE REVENUE IS PRIMARILY AGGRIEVED BY DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS.47.92 LACS AS LEVIED BY LD. AO U/S 271(1)(C) VIDE PENALTY ORDER DATED 04/03/2016. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DELIBERATED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES. 2.1 THE PERUSAL OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 04/03/2016 ESTABLISH THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF GALA NOS. 605 TO 608 SITUATED AT SOLARIS-I, SAKI VIHAR ROAD WHICH WERE UNEARTHED PURSUANT TO SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A ON ASSESSEE ON 23/11/2012. ANOTHER ADDITION AGAINST WHICH THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONS OF RS.15,735/- AGAINST ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. AO HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF ORDER OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN QUANTUM APPEAL WHILE LEVYING PENALTY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 2.2 THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) ON 25/03/2013 WHEREIN AT PARA 3.3, THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF CAPITAL GAINS, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES WERE INITIATED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 2.3 DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 (1)(C) DATED 25/03/2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, HOWEVER, NOT SATISFIED WITH ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, LD. AO, VIDE PARAS 5 & 6 OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 04/03/2016 LEVIED IMPUGNED PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - G) IN VIEW OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED ABOVE AND ON CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE MANNER IT IS CONCLUDED WITHOUT DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME / HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I T ACT, 1961. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION, AMOUNT ADDED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME REPRESENTS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH FRESH ORDERS HAVE BEEN CONCEDED WITH THIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 1(A) OF SECTION 271(1)(C). THUS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 6. ACCORDINGLY, RS.2,25,73,110/- WHICH REPRESENT ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE FURTHER APPEAL IS DEEMED THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FURNISHED/PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN CONCEALED. SOME MINOR VARIATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY VIDE RECTIFICATION ORDERS U/S 154 DATED 09/06/2016 AND 03/10/2016. 4 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS ON MERITS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/06/2017. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON LEGAL GROUNDS, INTER-ALIA, BY SUBMITTING THAT NOTICE U/S 274 WAS ISSUED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEREAS PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WHICH WAS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW SINCE BOTH THE ALLEGATIONS CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS TO SUPPORT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, CONQUERED WITH ASSESSEES LEGAL SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - DECISION I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AND DECIDE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREUNDER. THE GROUND NO. 1.0, 1.1 AND 1.2 RELATE TO A COMMON ISSUE WHEREIN THE APPELLANT DISPUTED THE LEVY OF PENALTY, ON TECHNICAL REASONS, STATING THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY IN NOTICE U/S.274 FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' WHEREAS HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SEC.271(1)(C) OF I.T.ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A COPY OF NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S.271 DATED 25/03/2013 WHEREIN THE AO HAS TICKED THE RELEVANT PORTION OF 'FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. THE EXPLANATION-1 TO SEC 27L(1)(C) RELATE TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT AO LEVIED THE PENALTY ON STATING THAT 'SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION, AMOUNT ADDED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, REPRESENTS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH FRESH ORDERS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION-1 (A) OF SECTION 271(1)(C)'. THEREFORE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE INITIATION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN MADE FOR ONE CHARGE VIZ. 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' WHEREAS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR DIFFERENT CHARGE VIZ.'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME'. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) DECIDED THAT -'THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW.' 5 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (ITA NO. 1154 OF 2014} DECIDED THAT- 'THE ABOVE SUBMISSION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IS IN THE FACE OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ASHOK PAI VS.CIT 292 ITR 11 [RELIED UPON IN MANJUNATH COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA)] WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, CARRY DIFFERENT MEANINGS / CONNOTATIONS. THEREFORE, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO ONLY ONE OF THE TWO BREACHES MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT WARRANT/ PERMIT PENALTY BEING IMPOSED FOR THE OTHER BREACH. THIS IS MORE SO, AS AN ASSESSEE WOULD RESPOND TO THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED/ NOTICE ISSUED. IT MUST, THEREFORE, FOLLOW THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND OF WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED, AND IT CANNOT BE ON A FRESH GROUND OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO NOTICE.' SIMILARLY, HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. VS. CIT (282 ITR 642) AND JURISDICTIONAL MUM-ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. VS. DCIT (ITA NO.5454/ MUM/ 2011) DECIDED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED FOR DUAL CHARGE AND LD. AO COULD LEVY THE PENALTY ONLY UNDER ONE SPECIFIC CHARGE EITHER FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' OR 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME'. THIS VIEW IS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016] 73 TAXMANN. COM 248 (SC) WHERE THE SLP OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED AGAINST THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECISION. FROM THE HEADNOTES - 'SECTION 274, READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 -PENALTY - PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSITION OF (CONDITIONS PRECEDENT) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - TRIBUNAL, RELYING ON DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 TAXMAN 423/35 TAXMANN.COM 250, ALLOWED APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS BAD IN LAW, AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED, I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME - HIGH COURT HELD THAT MATTER WAS COVERED BY AFORESAID DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FOR DETERMINATION - WHETHER SINCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN SLP FILED BY REVENUE, SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED - HELD, YES [PARA 2] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE].' EVEN THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF MEHERJEE CASSINATH HOLDINGS PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (ITAT MUMBAI) PRONOUNCED ON 29.04.2017 DISTINCTLY CONSIDERED THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND HELD ON PAGE 14 PARA 14 AS UNDER 'IN OUR VIEW, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 10.12.2010 IS UNTENABLE AS IT SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (SUPRA). 6 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 THUS, ON THIS COUNT ITSELF THE PENALTY-IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED.' THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS STATED HEREINABOVE I HOLD THAT AO HAS TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY ON A SPECIFIC CHARGE AND INITIATING THE PENALTY UNDER ONE CHARGE AND LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER DIFFERENT CHARGE IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE AO, IN NOTICE U/S.274, INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' AND ULTIMATELY LEVIED THE PENALTY, IN PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C), FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THUS, THE LEVY OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS HEREBY DELETED. 7. THERE IS ALSO A FORCE IN ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED UNDER DUAL CHARGE AND COULD BE LEVIED EITHER FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' OR FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME; THE PROVISION OF SEC.271(1)(C) IS AS UNDER :- 'IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER APPEALS OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON __ (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. THE WORD 'OR' USED IN SEC.271(1)(C) DENOTE THAT THE PENALTY HAS TO BE INITIATED AND LEVIED IN EITHER OF TWO CHARGES BEING FOR 'CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' AND NOT IN RESPECT OF BOTH CHARGES. THE AO, AT PARA 6 OF PENALTY ORDER, LEVIED THE PENALTY ON HOLDING THAT -'ACCORDINGLY RS.2,25,73,110/- WHICH REPRESENT ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN BEFORE APPEAL IS DEEMED TO THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FURNISHED/PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN CONCEALED. 'THEREFORE, AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THAT UNDER WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. THUS, FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ABOVE I HOLD THAT PENALTY ORDER SHOULD BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB THE PENALTY IS INITIATED AND LEVIED AND FIXING THE DUAL CHARGE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS HEREBY DELETED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS. 1.0, 1.1 AND 1.2 ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) HAS FORTIFIED THE DECISION IN SUBSEQUENT PARAS ON THE GROUND THAT LD. AO HAD LEVIED PENALTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DEBATABLE ISSUE, DIVERGENT ISSUES AND BONA-FIDE EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 4. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A), INTER-ALIA, BY OBSERVING THAT ALTHOUGH THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT FINALLY THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. AS SETTLED IN CATENA OF BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, THESE TWO TERMS CARRY DIFFERENT MEANING / CONNOTATIONS AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE EXACT LIMB FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING PENALIZED, WOULD BE FATAL TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IN THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION, HAS RELIED UPON BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED ABOVE. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE SAID RULINGS SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS OR FEATURES COULD BE POINTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND IN THE ADJUDICATION OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. IN RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH AUG, 2019 SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09/08/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE 8 ITA NO.6250/MUM/2017 M/S. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI