ASST CIT 11(3)(2), MUMBAI V. YASH JEWELLERY P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6284/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9796 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G B ENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6284/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ) ACIT -11(3)(2) ROOM NO. 427, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 603 & 604, BLOCK NO.1, SEEPZ ++, SEZ, MIDC, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400096 . PAN: AAACY2843R APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ARATI VISSANJI (ADVOCATE) DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 07.12.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A)-18, MUMBAI DATED 09.06.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-1 5. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 1,02,58,728/- U/S.14A R.W.R.8D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO FURNISH THE BREAK-UP OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS AND AVAILABILITY OF SURPLUS FUNDS AS ON THE DATE OF INVESTMENTS WITH CO-RELATION TO EACH INVESTMENT. FURTHER, THE A.O. NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE MIGHT BE HOLDING A POOL OF FUNDS, HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT SEPARAB LE INTO SURPLUS AND BORROWED FUNDS.' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.1,02,58,728/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FINANCE COST WAS ALS O CONSIDERED AS RELATABLE FINANCE COST AND THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM WAS DISALLOWE D U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. AS REGARDS APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, T HE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 2 COURT HAS, IN A JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON 12.8.2010 IN ITA NO.626/2010 & WRIT PETITION NO.758/2010 IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., MUMBAI VS. DY.CIT-10(2), MUMBAI AND OTHER, RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT. ' 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.33,23,370/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING OF INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES, WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST OF MORE THAN RS.10 CRORE ON T HE BORROWED FUNDS AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST ON THE BORROWINGS; WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, IT HAS ADV ANCED LOANS TO VARIOUS PARTIES WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEEN UTILIZED W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS.' 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF JEWELLERY, FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 28.11.2014 DECLARING LOS S OF RS. 9,57,95,112/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION/DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 1,02,58,728/- AND DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 33,23,370/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) B OTH THE DISALLOWANCE WERE DELETED. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. C IT (A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ( AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUN D NO. 1 & 2 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 1.02 CRORE. THE LD. ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 3 DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSESSME NT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED SUBSTANTIA L FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT TRIBUTED ANY EXPENSES FOR CARRY OUT OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE WORKING OF DISALL OWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 13.12.2016 F URNISHED THE DISALLOWANCE/WORKING UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 1.02 CRORE. SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE ITSELF HAS OFFERED DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MAD E BY ASSESSEE FROM ITS OWN INTEREST FREE FUND AND NO DISALLOWANCE ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE MADE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY EX EMPT INCOME, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 1 4A IS WARRANTED. THE ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 4 LD. AR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SO FAR AS ASSESSEE IS SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE/WORKING UNDER SECTION 14A IS CONCERNED , THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LAW, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T RECEIVED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME, THUS, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WARRANTED. IN SUPPORT OF HER SUBMI SSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD VS CIT (378ITR 33 DELHI) AND PCIT VS . MCDONALDS INDIA PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 725/2018) DATED 22.10.2018 . 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A ND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NO TED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME, THOUGH THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT ATTRIBUTED ANY EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED TO CARR Y OUT OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED AS TO WHY TH E EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO INVESTMENT IN EXEMPT INCOME YIELDIN G ASSET SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 23.1 2.2016. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT THEY HAVE NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES WHILE MAKING INVESTMENT I N EQUITY SHARE. THOUGH, ALONG WITH THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D WORKING OF ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 5 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1.02 CRORE. THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT FURTHER EXAMINING THE FACT ACCEPTED THE WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT FROM HIS OWN FUND IN EQUITY SHARE AND NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAID FACT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF THE INV ESTMENT FROM INTEREST FREE FUND. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NO D IVIDEND INCOME IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANC IAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC TION 14A IS ADMISSIBLE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE BALA NCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH THEM, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST DISALLO WANCE IS PERMISSIBLE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE INVESTMENT W ERE MADE BY ASSESSEE IN STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AND NO DIVIDEND IN COME IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BESIDES SUPPO RTING THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVAN T PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME; THEREF ORE, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY. THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 6 WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE AS SESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY, IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. FURTHER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT. FURTHER, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS. BALLARPUR IND USTRIES LTD. (ITA NO. 51/2016 DATED 13.10.2016) TAKEN THE SAME VIEW B Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD.(SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D IS APPLICAB LE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDED ON THIS GROUND THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED BY ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PR OVISION OF SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. 7. SO FAR AS SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS CONCERNED. IT IS THE MANDA TE OF ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THAT NO TAX CAN BE LEVIE D WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ACT AGAINST T HE MANDATE OF LAW. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ACT ON THE WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE, WHEN NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A IS ADMISSIBLE FOR ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 7 THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A . IN THE RESULT, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS MODIFIED ON DISALLOWANCE UND ER SECTION 14A. HENCE, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY REV ENUE IS DISMISSED ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. 8. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST EXPENSES. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A SSESSING OFFICER. THE DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE @12% ON SIMILAR ADVANCE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSES ON SIMILAR LINES. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DIS ALLOWANCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND WIT HOUT SPEAKING ORDER. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPE NSES OF RS. 15,51,990/- UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED THE INTEREST BY APPLYING NOTIONAL RATE OF 12% AGAINST THE AVERAGE C OST OF BORROWING OF IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS QUANTIFIED BY GIVING WEIGHTAGE TO INTEREST FREE FUND. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 8 NO OCCASION TO APPLY ANY NOTIONAL RATE FOR WORKING OUT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1) (III). THE LD AR SUBMITS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED RS. 15,51,990/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1) (III) ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE COST OF BORROWING. TH E STATEMENT SHOWING THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE IS PLACED ON RECORD AS PER PAGE NO. 15 TO 20 OF THE PB. IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH IT, THUS DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN SUPPORT OF HER SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LIMITED 313 ITR 340(BO M). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AN D HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF E ARLIER YEARS AND DISALLOWED THE INTEREST @ 12% ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTER EST FREE ADVANCES OF RS. 4,06,28,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS. 48,75,360/- AFTER DEDUCTING THE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 15,51,990/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,23,370/-. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SIMILAR SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFORE US AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE M ADE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,51,990/- BY ADOPTING WEIGHTA GE AVERAGE COST OF ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 9 BORROWING @ 3.82%, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER A DOPTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RATE @ 12% WHICH IS ERRONE OUS. THE LD CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUD ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY ADOPTED THE NOTIONAL RATE OF INTERE ST AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE W ITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS RELATED WITH THE ISSUE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT DUR ING RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES OF RS. 4,06,28,000/-. T HERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE T O FOUR PARTIES. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF THE ADVANCES A ND THE INTEREST DISALLOWED, WHICH WE HAVE SUMMARIZED BELOW; SR NO. NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT OF ADVANCE INTEREST DISALLOWED 1 SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS 1,45,00,000/- 5,53,900/- 2 JAYA TRADING 2,05,00,000/- 7,83,100/- 3 CATWALK 30,00,000/- 1,14,600/- 4 ASTORIO AGRO & ALLIED INDUSTRIES 26,28,000/- 1,00,390/- TOTAL 4,06,28,000/- 15,51,990/- ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 10 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE FURNISHED THE WORK ING OF THE AVERAGE COST OF BORROWING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN HAS SHOWN THE AVERAGE COST OF THE BORROWING AT 3.82%. THE ASSESSEE HAS OF FERED THE DISALLOWANCE @ 3.82%. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FAC TS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,51,990/-, WHICH IS REASONABL E KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVA ILABLE WITH IT. THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITY AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THA T IF THE ASSESSEE OWNED SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE NO DISALLOW ANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) IS WARRANTED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF DECISION IN RELIANCE UTILITY AND POWER LTD. NO FURTHER DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES @ 12% AS ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS P ERMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELET E THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 3323370/- WORKED OUT BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS , THE GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS ALSO FAILED. NO CONTRAR Y MATERIAL OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. IN THE RE SULT THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 6284 MUM 2017 - M/S YASH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 11 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/ 12/2018. SD/ SD/- N.K. PRADHAN PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 07.12.2018 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI