ASST CIT CEN CIR 3, THANE V. AKSHAR DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 6345/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0253 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAVLD
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY SINGH LD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.6345/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 ROOM NO. 11, A WING 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR IT PARK ROAD NO. 16Z WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE (WEST) THANE / VS. AKSHAR DEV ELOPERS SHOP NO.7 & 8 PLOT NO.42 SHREEJI SEVA NERUL NAVI MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAKFA-0455-B ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$ ' / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : AJAY SINGH, LD. AR RE VENUE BY : RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 14/06/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 /06/2017 ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 2 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2008- 09 ASSAILS THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 31/07/2014 QUA DELETION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM ENGAGED AS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153B(B) FOR THE IMPUGNED AY ON 30/12/2009. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER QUESTION WAS UNDERTAKEN CONSEQUENT TO S EARCH / SEIZURE / SURVEY ACTION IN PATEL GROUP OF CASES ON 17/01/2008, ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF GROUP ENTITY. 3. THE ASSESSE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,94,33,881/- WHICH INCLUDED ADDITIONA L INCOME OF RS.4,29,96,250/- DISCLOSED/OFFERED BY ASSESSEE DURI NG SEARCH. THE INCOME WAS LATER REVISED ON 27/12/2008 AT RS.5,92,3 9,159/-. HOWEVER, THE INCOME WAS FINALLY ASSESSED AT RS.5,05,97,208/- AFTER CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS / DISALLOWANCES. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.2.20 CRORES MADE/OFF ERED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. UPON PERUSAL OF SEIZED MATERIAL / CD, LD. AO NOT ED LARGE VARIATION IN SALE PRICE PER SQUARE FEET CHARGED FROM CUSTOMER S ON SALE OF FLATS/SHOPS IN A PROJECT NAMELY SHREEJI HEIGHTS WHICH LED THE LD. AO TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALE VALUE . THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 3 JUSTIFIED PRICE VARIATION VIDE LETTER DATED 24/12/2 009 BUT AT THE SAME TIME OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2.20 CRORES TO M AKE UP FOR THE SHORTCOMINGS / DEFICIENCIES PURPORTEDLY TO BUY PEAC E OF MIND AND TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION. THE AO ACCEPTED THE ADDIT IONAL INCOME BUT INITIATED PENALTY AGAINST THE SAME. NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED ON 30/12/2009. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.74,77,800/- U/S 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 29/03 /2012. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME ON ME RITS AS WELL AS ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 31/07/2014. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. AO HIMSELF WAS NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE LIMB FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS BEING IN ITIATED. FURTHER, ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON ESTIMATED BASIS UPON VO LUNTARY OFFER BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY FACTUM OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) AGR EED WITH ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND NOTED THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOT DETEC TED ANY SPECIFIC CONCEALMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE PURELY ON ESTIMATED BASIS. THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) D ELETED THE SAID PENALTY BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 4.1.1 FROM THE ABOVE FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RE CORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT DETECTED ANY SPECIFIC CONCEALMENT OR SUPPRESSIO N OF THE RECEIPTS. IN FACT, THE A.O HAS ALSO NOT ISSUED ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE QUANT IFYING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 2,20,00,000/-. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS COME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY TO DISCLOSE AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 2,20,00,000/- TO BUY MENTAL PEACE AND TO AVOID LITI GATION WITH FURTHER CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. IT IS ALSO NOTICED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS VERY CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE VARIATION IN THE RATE ON ACCOUNT OF C USTOMERS NEGOTIATIONS AND ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 4 SPECIFICATIONS OF THE FLATS INCLUDING VARIOUS AMENI TIES AND LOCATION OF THE FLAT. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL PRACTICE THAT THE FLATS OR A NY OTHER PROPERTY AT THE PRIME LOCATION ARE SOLD AT HIGHER PRICES AND THE ADDITION AL FACILITIES PROVIDED ARE ALSO CHARGED SEPARATELY. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT APPEL LANT ITSELF HAS DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS.4,15,05,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED AT A FLAT RATE OF RS.150/- PER SQ. FT. ALTHOUGH THE A.O. ACCEPTED THIS DISCLOSURE, YET IMPOSED PENALTY U/S. 271AAA IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF BY OBSERVING THAT THE M ANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS EARNED WAS NOT EXPLAINED BECAUSE 'ON MONEY' CHARGED SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT FOR THE FLATS/SHOPS LOCATED AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS/ VIEW AND ON DIFFERENT DATES AND ACCORDINGLY, CLAIM OF 'ON MONEY' CHARGED RS. 150/ - PER SQ.FT, AT FIAT RATE REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THUS, FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. HIMSELF, IT IS C LEAR THAT 'ON MONEY' AND THE SALE PRICES CHARGED ARE BOUND TO VAR Y DEPENDING UPON THE LOCATION OF THE FLAT, CUSTOMERS NEGOTIATION CAPACIT Y AND THE DATES OF BOOKING. HENCE, APPLICATION OF HIGHEST RATE PER SQUARE FEET FOR ESTIMATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DETECTION OF ANY UN ACCOUNTED INCOME BY THE A.O. THUS, FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE FINDING OF THE A.O, HIMSELF, IT IS CLEAR THAT A.O, HAS ADOPTED TWO DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS FOR IMPOS ING PENALTIES U/S. 271(1)(C ) AND 271AAA IN RESPECT OF THE 'ON MONEY' CHARGED WHICH C LEARLY REFLECTED TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE A.O. HIMSELF. IT IS NOW AN ESTABLISHED LEGAL POSITION THAT, WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED. MOREOVER, THE ADDITION MADE ITSELF IS BASED ON PURE ESTIMATES AND ALSO ON VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIT CASE FOR IMP OSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AS THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME WITHIN THE ME ANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C ), THIS VIEW ALSO GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. A.R. PARTICULARLY THE DECISIONS OF HON.BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT.LTD. (SUP RA). ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1 )(C). THUS, THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 & 3. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIFIED THE AC TION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT LARGE VARIATION IN THE SALE PRICE WERE NOTED IN THE SALE OF IDENTICAL FLATS / SHOPS WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND THERE BEING CLEAR SUPPRESSION IN SALE VALUE, THE AS SESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND THEREFORE, RIGHTLY BE EN SADDLED WITH IMPUGNED PENALTY. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FA CT THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN LAW TO ABSOLVE ASSESSEE FROM PENALTY O N ACCOUNT OF ADDITION VOLUNTARILY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AS PER THE RATIO ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 5 LAID DOWN BY APEX COURT IN MAK DATA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT [2013 358 ITR 593]. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [AR] FILED AN APPLICAT ION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES, 1963 IN RESPECT OF LEGAL CONTENTIONS REGARDING VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) SINCE LD. CIT(A) DISMISS THE SAME IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. BY WAY OF SAID GROUND, THE LD. AR HAS QUESTIONED THE V ALIDITY OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECORDING OF PROPER S ATISFACTION BY THE LD. AO. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE GROUNDS /LIMBS ON WHICH PENALTY WAS INITIATED, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) AND THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PENALTY HAS FINALLY BE EN LEVIED. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON MANY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCE MENTS OF VARIOUS HIGHER AUTHORITIES FOR THE CONTENTION THAT MERE DEF ECT IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE VITIATES THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON VOLUNTARY SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED BY LD. AR QUESTIONS THE VERY VALIDITY OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE TAKE UP THE SAME FIRST. 9. A PERUSAL OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS TH AT PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED BY LD. AO ON THIS ADDITION OF RS.2.2 0 CRORES BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 6 AS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AN D CONCEALED THE INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AND 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY. AGAINST THE SAME, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN ITNS FORM 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) DATED 30/12/2009 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN WE FIND THAT A TICK MARK HAS BEEN PLACED AGAINST THE CLAUSE *HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR ___________FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME WITHOUT STRIKING OFF THE RELEVANT LIMB. FINALLY, THE PENALT Y HAS BEEN IMPOSED AGAINST CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS EVIDENT FROM THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATION MADE BY LD. AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER:- ASSESSEE MAKES A SUBMISSION WHEN THE SHOW-CAUSE WAS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SUCH ADMISSION SHOULD NOT IN ANY MAN NER ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM DEFAULT OF CONCEALMENT COMMITTED. MERELY BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE CONCEALMENT WOULD NOT ABSOLVE HIM FROM THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271 (1)(C). PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS LEVIABLE BASED AS THE AS SESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO OFFER THE AMOUNT. HENCE, APPARENTLY IT CAN BE JU DGED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO HIDE THE INCOME THEREBY NOT TO PAY THE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS / FACTS, IN OUR OPINION, REV EAL INCONSISTENT THINKING ON THE PART OF LD. AO SINCE, PRIMA FACIE, HE HIMSELF IS NOT SURE AS TO THE GROUNDS / BASIS FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS BEI NG INITIATED FOR THE REASONS SATED HEREINAFTER. 10. A PERUSAL OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEA LS THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY INVOKING BOTH S ECTION 271(1)(C) AND SECTION 271 AAA WHICH ALTOGETHER OPERATE IN DIF FERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. MOREOVER, FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS AND ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 7 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS PER SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSIT IONS, ARE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS AND CARRY DIFFERENT MEANING AND TWO SE PARATE LIMBS. THE SAME ALSO BECOMES CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SHOW-C AUSE NOTICE WHICH STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FINALLY , THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT U/S 271(1)(C) WHICH SHOWS CO NFUSION / DOUBT PREVAILING IN THE MIND OF LD. AO. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO SPECIFY THE EXACT CHARGE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING PENALIZED WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO AND THE SAME HAS RESUL TED INTO TAKING AWAY ASSESSEES VALUABLE RIGHT OF CONTESTING THE SAME AN D THEREBY VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 11. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN DILIP N.SHROFF VS. JCIT (291 ITR 519) WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THE HONBLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT NON-STRIKING OFF OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF STANDARD SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE REFLECTS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY AO AND H ENCE VITIATES THE PENALTY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE RATIO OF THI S CASE WAS VERY MUCH RELEVANT AND VALID DESPITE THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSOR ( 306 ITR 277) IN VIEW OF ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [322 ITR 158] WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT REASONING GIVEN IN TH E CASE OF DILIP N.SHROFF COULD NOT BE FAULTED EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF OBSERV ATIONS REGARDING NECESSITY OF MENS-REA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 271(1)(C). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE JUDGMENT RE NDERED BY HONBLE ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 8 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013 359 ITR 565] WHICH WAS LATER FOLLOWED BY THE SAME COURT IN CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS [ITA NO. 380 OF 2015 23/11/2015] AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [SLP] FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE APEX COURT IN CC NO.11485/2016 ORDER DATED 05/08/2016 WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE COURT, FINDING NO MERITS I N THE CASE. FURTHER, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE RATIO OF SAME JUDGMENT IN CIT VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [ITA NO. 1154 OF 201 4 ORDER DATED 05/01/2017] AND FURTHER TRIBUNAL, IN CATENA OF JUDGMENT AND MOR E PARTICULARLY IN WADHWA ESTATE & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT [ITA N0. 2158/MUM/2016 DATED 24/02/2017] HAS TAKEN THE SAME VIEW FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS. EVEN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA [SUPRA], THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 MUST REVEAL APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE MUST BE AWARE OF THE EXACT CHARGE ON WHICH HE HAD TO FILE HIS EXPLANATION. IT WAS FUR THER OBSERVED THAT VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE DEPRIVES THE ASSESSEE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE SAME. 12. THE REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT [2017 ITA NO. 6617/MUM/2014] . HOWEVER, WE FIND THE SAME DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACT S SINCE IN THAT CASE THE LD. AO, SINCE THE TIME OF IN ITIATION OF PENALTY AND TILL THE CONCLUSION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WAS VER Y CLEAR ABOUT THE LIMB FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS BEING INITIATED / LEVIED WITH OUT THERE BEING ANY AMBIGUITY. ITA NO.6345/M/2014 AKSHAR DEVELOPERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 9 13. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF A BOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS STOOD VITIATED FOR WANT OF SATISFACTION AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WE HELD SO WHICH RESULTS INTO DISMISSAL OF REVENUES APPEAL . 14. SINCE, WE HAVE QUASHED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON LEGAL GROUND, WE SEE NO NECESSITY TO DELVE UPON THE MATTER ON MER ITS ANY FURTHER. 15. RESULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMIS SED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 27 .06.2017 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH / 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