PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD., MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T.CIR.4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6309/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tax effect; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 133(6); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6309/MUM/2012 FOR AY - 2007-08 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER PVT. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, SADHANA HOUSE, 570, P. B. MARG, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWER, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 PAN: AAACP2733Q VS. ASST. CIT CIRCLE- 4(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 6653/MUM/2012 FOR AY - 2007-08 ASST. CIT CIRCLE- 4(2), ROOM NO. 642, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. M/S PRABHUDAS LILLADHER PVT. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, SADHANA HOUSE, 570, P. B. MARG, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWER, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 PAN: AAACP2733Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPUL JOSHI (A R) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. DHYANI (D R) DATE OF HEARING : 11.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THESE TWO CROSS APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI DATED 09.08.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 20 07-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE RELATED WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHAR E TRADING (BROKERAGE) FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY ON 2 9.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,71,36,159/-. THE RETURN OF IN COME WAS SELECTED FOR 2 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. SCRUTINY. THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, BES IDES OTHER ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 88E OF RS. 16,69,848/-, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 32,50,000/- U/S 36(1)(II) ON AC COUNT OF COMMISSION/EX-GRATIA PAYMENT TO DIRECTORS OF ASSESS EE-COMPANY, ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,10,416/- U/S 68, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 4,35,268/- AND FURTHER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS 1.00 LACS OUT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES BY TREATING AS CAPI TAL EXPENDITURE AND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2009. FEELING AGGR IEVED OF THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). TH E LD CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE ADDI TION OF DIVIDEND INCOME TO 5% AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES WAS TREATED AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION U/S 88E, U/S 36(1)(II) A ND 68 OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEAL AGAINST SUSTAINING OF ADDI TION U/S 88E, 36(1)(II) AND 68 OF THE ACT FILED THE PRESENT ITA NO. 6309/MU M/2012 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6309/MUM/2012: 1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPE ALS) - 9, MUMBAI ['THE LD. CIT (A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE ADDL. CIT-4 (2), MUMBAI ['THE A.O.'] IN RESTRICTING THE REBATE U/S. 88E TO RS. 16,69,848/-, AS AGAINST RS. 30,78,479/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 1.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH RESTRICTION WAS CALLED FOR. 1.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE RE- COMPUTATION OF THE REBATE AS DONE BY THE A.O. IS NO T IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND IS ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE. 2.1 THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE OF EX-GRATIA PAID TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT'S COMPANY, A MOUNTING TO RS. 1,35,00,000/-, U/S. 36 (1) (II) OF THE ACT. 2.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 2.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS FULLY ALLOWABLE U/S. 37(1) OF THE A CT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,10,416/, BEING SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM SUB - BROKERS , U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 3.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), HAS CHALLENGED THE RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIVIDEND INCOME TO 5% AND TREATING THE 3 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN IT A NO6653/M/2012 RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO RESTRICT THE D ISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE DIVIDEND EARNED. 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING ENDUR ING BENEFIT. 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED.' 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR REVENUE AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST WE ARE TAKING ITA NO. 6653/MUM/2012 FILED BY THE REVENUE. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE BEING ITA NO. 6653/MUM/2012 IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR PRESCRIBED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIR ECTOR TAXES(CBDT) VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO.21/2015(F.NO.142/2007-ITJ (PT. ) DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015. WHEREIN THE REVENUE IS PRECLUDED FO R FILING THE APPEAL WHEREIN TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE CASE IS LESS THA N RS. 10 LAKHS. LD. DR FOR REVENUE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT TAX EFFECT IN THEI R APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION O F THE PARTIES, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAI NTAINABLE. ITA NO. 6309/MUM/2012 4. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF REBATE U/S 88E OF RS. 14,08,631/-. LD. AR OF ASSESSEE ARGU ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE DETAILED SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO AS W ELL AS CIT(A). AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CALCULATING THE AMOU NT OF COMMON EXPENDITURE AND AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SECURITY TRANSACTION. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THERE WERE OTHER EXPENDITURE WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIB UTABLE TO THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION AND IF ALL OTHER EXPENSES OF EXPENDITUR E IS PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SECURIT Y TRANSACTION COMES TO RS. 9,14,213/- AND ACCORDINGLY REBATE COMES TO RS. 28,70,095/- WHICH 4 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ABOUT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABL E TO THE SECURITY TRANSACTION WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 118 AND 119 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PB) FILED BEFORE US. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE F URTHER ARGUED THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 03.08.2012 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE NOT CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORD ER. LD. DR FOR REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED ALL THE R ELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 03.08.2012 AND 16.03.2011 AND THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUT ABLE TO SECURITY TRANSACTION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. THUS, WE SET-ASIDE THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORED TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE ATT RIBUTABLE TO THE SECURITY TRANSACTION AND PASS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER AFTER GI VING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE O N ACCOUNT OF EX-GRATIA PAID OF RS. 1.35 LAKHS PAID TO ITS DIRECTOR. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO ATTACHED TO CLA USE-(2) OF SUB-SECTION 1 OF SECTION 36 WAS DELETED W.E.F. 01.04.1989 AND THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE SECOND PROVISO OF SECTION 3 6(1)(II) OF THE ACT (PARA 6.8.3 OF THE ORDER). LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE F URTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. CONVERTECH EQUIPMENTS (P.) LTD. [2013] 217 TAXMAN 115 (DEL.) , AND THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN NEW SILK ROUTE ADVISERS (P.) LTD . VS. DCIT [2015] 55 TAXMAN.COM 540. LD. DR FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE 5 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DECLARED DIVIDEN D INCOME AS NIL, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE E ARNED AROUND RS. 7.11 CRORES AS A PROFIT, THERE ARE FOUR SHAREHOLDERS ALL ARE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND RS. 1.35 CRORE WAS PAID TO THE M AS COMMISSION/EX-GRATIA. IF THE COMMISSION/EX-GRATIA H AD NOT BEEN PAID, IT WAS CLEARLY PAYABLE AS DIVIDEND TO THEM BUT INSTEAD OF PAYING DIVIDEND, THEY OPTED TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROFIT AMONG THEMSELVE S IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION/EX-GRATIA AND THUS COMMISSION/EX-GRATIA PAID TO THEM FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED U/S 36(1)(II) OF THE A CT. LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THIS GROUND ALSO CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSE ES CASE IS NOT COVERED BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT, AND FURTHER HELD THAT NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WERE PLACED BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THAT EX- GRATIA PAYMENT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRACTICE PREV AILING AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CONVERTECH EQUIPMENTS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN LOYAL MOTORS SERVICES CO. LTD. VS. CIT [19 46] 14 ITR 647 HOLD THAT IF THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PAID FOR SERVICE S RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR AS PER THE TERM OF THE APPOINTMENT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEND OR PROFIT IN THE GUISE OF COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTICED THAT WHILE COMMISSION WAS PAID AS A FORM OF REMUNERATION FOR ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED, DIVIDEND IS A RETURN ON I NVESTMENT AND IS PAID TO ITS ENTIRE SHAREHOLDER EQUALLY. IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS PAID FOR ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED, SECTION 36(1)(II) WIL L NOT APPLY. FURTHER, IN CASE OF COIL COMPANY PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISTRIBUTED THE DIVIDEND FROM VERY INCEPTION, IT DID NOT MEAN THAT SAID COMMISSION PAYMENT WOULD TAKE COLOUR OF DIVIDEND AND THUS DISA LLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THE TERM OF CONTRACT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR AND THE NATURE OF SERVICES 6 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. RENDERED BY THEM. DURING THE COURSE OF SUBMISSION B EFORE US, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN US THE TERM OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTORS. WHILE PERUSING THE PB, WE FIND THAT COPY OF SERVICE AGREEMENT IS PLACED ON R ECORD IN THE PB AT PAGE 120 TO 126. WHILE GOING THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS AT PAGE 120 TO 126 OF PB ARE THE COPY OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING CERTAIN BEN EFITS TO SHRI DILIP BHAT (PAGE NO. 120 121), TO MRS. AMISHA VORA (PAG E NO. 122-123) AND (PAGE NO. 124 TO 126) REFERRED THE RESOLUTION WITH REGARD TO TERM AND CONDITION FOR SHRI ARUN P. SHETH. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED ON RECORD TO SHOW IF THESE RESOLUTIONS WERE APPROVED BY COMPETEN T AUTHORITIES UNDER COMPANY LAW. AS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO DIS CUSS ABOUT THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT AND THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECT OR, HENCE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE-CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CON SIDERING ALL THE SERVICE CONTRACT IF ANY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY AND THE DIRECTORS AND OTHER MATERIAL INCLUDING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSE. 6. GROUND NO.3 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS CONFIRMATION O F ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE CIT(A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING NOT CALLED THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNI SHING FURTHER INFORMATION FOR FURNISHING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . THE AO FURNISHED THE REMAND REPORT WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT REFERRED ITS SUB MISSION WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND THE PERSONS F ROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE TAKEN SECURITY DEPOSIT NOT TURNED UP WITH NOTICE U/ S 133(6) WERE ISSUED. EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING, THE NOTICE U/S 1 33(6) WERE ISSUED TO 34 PARTIES OUT OF WHICH ONLY 4 PERSONS TURN UP. THE AO GAVE ITS REMAND REPORT AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED TO H IM. 7 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PAR TIES. LD. AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS T AKEN A SECURITY DEPOSIT FROM 124 PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SAID DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE FILE D ITS REPLY AND CONTENDED THERE IN THAT THE DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY IT FROM ITS CLIENT TO ALLOW THEM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS THROUGH THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF 34 PERSON TOTAL DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM THOSE PERSONS WERE OF RS. 1,20,10,416 /-. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE C ONFIRMATION OF THESE CREDITORS TILL 30.12.2009, THUS THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,20,10,416/- WAS TREATED AS NOT GENUINE AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF ASSE SSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE FAA/LD. CIT(A), IT WAS ARGUED THAT DUE TO PRACTICAL DEFECTS, THE EVIDENCE COULD BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH WRITTE N SUBMISSION. THE APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS CONSIDERED B Y LD. CIT(A) AND FORWARDED THE SAME TO AO FOR EXAMINATION AND REMAND REPORT. THE AO REPORTED THAT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING, THE NOT ICE U/S 136 WERE ISSUED TO 34 PARTIES OUT OF THESE 34 PARTIES ONLY 4 PERSONS RESPONDED. THE COPY OF REMAND REPORT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SEEKING HIS REJOINDER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT A ND CONFIRMATION FROM MAXUS & FINANCIAL SERVICES WHO HAD DEPOSITED RS. 3, 00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME AMOUNT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- WAS REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,10,416/-. THE ASSESSEE U RGED BEFORE US THAT NEITHER THE AO GAVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY NOR THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE HIM AND THE ASSESSEE WAS D ENIED OPPORTUNITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF MOU WITH SUB- BROKERS (PAGE 343 TO 488 OF PB). FURTHER THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 03.08.2012 (PAGE 336 OF PB). WE DO NOT FIND ANY 8 ITA NOS. 6309 & 6653/M/2012 PRABHUDAS LILLADHER P. LTD. DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ABOUT THE DET AILS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 8. CONSIDERING THE PECULIARITY OF THE CASE, THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO E XAMINE ALL THE CONFIRMATION, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED B Y ASSESSEE WITH VARIOUS SUB-BROKERS AND TO PASS FRESH ORDER IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE, THE MATTER PERTAINS TO AY-2007-08, THE ASSES SEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND WRITTEN SU BMISSION ALTOGETHER INSTEAD OF FILING IN PIECEMEAL BEFORE HIM. THE AO S HALL CONSIDER AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE BY VIR TUE CIRCULAR NO. NO.21/2015(F.NO.142/2007-ITJ (PT.) DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.C. SHARMA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 21/09/2016 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/