DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(2), MUMBAI V. FORBES TECHNOSYS LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 6374/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7411 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L N
• Assessee Lawyers: D G PANSARI
• Keywords: Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.PRADHAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6374 /MUM./201 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 1 4 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD, GROUND FLOOR, FORBES BUILDING, CHARANJIT RAI MARG, FORT, MUMBAI 400001 PAN AAACF8567A . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : D.G. PANSARI, DR REVENUE BY : L.N. PANT, AR DATE OF HEARING 14 .08 .2019 DATE OF ORDER 30 .10 .2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 0 4. 0 8.2017 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 2, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14. IN GROUND NO. 1 REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` . 27,50,000/ REPRESENTING ADVANCES TO EMPLOYEES TOWARDS TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 2 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE , THE ASSESSEE , A RESIDENT COMPANY , IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING I NFORMATION T ECHNOLOGIES E NABLED S ERVICES (ITES), TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF BUSINESS AUTOMATION MACHINES ETC . FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIE RATION ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME 30.09.2013 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. IN C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . WHILE VERIFYING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` . 27,50,000/ B EING PROVISION MADE FOR TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES HAS BEEN DEB ITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON LUMP SUM BASIS. HOLDING THAT PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONTINGENT IN NATURE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF ` . 27,50,000/ . ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWA NCE BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) . LD. B EING SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE REPRESENTING THE PROVISION MADE HAS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALLOWED ASSESSE E S CLAIM. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF ` . 27,50,000/ ON THE REASONING THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS 3 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR AND THE PROVISI ON MADE IS OF CONTINGENT NATURE. BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE ADVANCES AVAILED BY THE EMPLOYEES TOWARDS TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR . H OWEVER, THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT FURNISH THE CLAIM BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED , AS PER THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED , THE EMPLOYEES SUBMIT THEIR CLAIM WITH REGARD TO TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 TO 4 MONTHS OF TRAVEL AND SETTLED THEIR ADVANCES OR CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT TOWARDS ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THEM. FROM THE AFORESAID FACT S , IT APPEARS THAT THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE WAS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES DURING THE YEAR , THOUGH , THE CLAIMS OF THE EMPLOYEES IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPE NDITURE WERE NOT RECEIVED. HOWEVER, THAT BY ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE PROVISION FOR EXPENDITURE CONTINGENT IN NATURE. THE FACT UAL ASPECT OF THE ISSUE WAS VERIFIED BY LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY PART OF THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUCCEED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. 4 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. 4. IN GROUND NO. 2 TO 6 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENDITURE S DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. I. PAYMENT OF R ENT ` . 68,71,902/ II. PAYMENT OF INTEREST ` . 15,00,000/ III. PAYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR CHARGES ` . 1,97,34,88/ IV. PAYMENT FOR FREIGHT AND FORWARDING CHARGES ` . 28,95,203/ V. PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION ` . . 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE , DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING PAYMENT FOR S UCH EXPENDITURE. AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HE FOUND THAT WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TOWARDS THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE S, THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT THE APPROPRIATE RATE OR HAS NOT AT ALL DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE . A LLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY VALID EXPLANATION F OR SHORT DEDUCTION / NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE , HE DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCES BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS PAYMENT OF RENT , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT IN RESPECT OF OPC ASSETS SOLUTION PRIVATE LTD., AND RENT WORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT A LOWER RATE ON THE 5 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. BASIS OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT LOWER RATE. THUS , HE OBSERVED , SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DEDUCTED TAX AT AN APPROPRIATE RATE , NO DISALLOWANCE IS R EQUIRED TO BE MADE. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSE E HE FOUND THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS RENT AMOUNTING TO ` . 1,13,92,537/ , AT BEST , DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` . 45,20,625/ . THUS HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF RENT TO THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. AS REGARDS , PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF ` . 15,00,000/ TO TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT INADVERTEN TLY INSTEAD OF SECTION 194A . HOWEVER , HE FOUND THAT THE RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER BOTH THE SECTION S IS SAME I.E. 10 PERCENT. FURTHER , HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED EVIDENCE SHOWING DEPOSIT OF TDS WITH THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. AS REGARDS, PAYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR CHARGE S TO GENIUS CONSULTANTS LIMITED, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT A LOWER RATE ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE DEPARTMENT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT A LOWER RATE. FURTHER , HE OBSERVED , BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT IT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT APPROPRIATE RATE FOR PAYMENT OF ` . 43,34,050/ AND ACCORDINGLY AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED 6 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` . 43,34,050/ . AS REGARDS FREIGHT AND FORWARDING CHARGES PAID OF ` . 28,95,203/ , LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT AND FORWARD ING ALONE BUT INCLUDES REIMBURSEMENT OF OCTROI AND ENTRY TAXES. THUS CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` . 59,62,589/ AS AGAINST ` . 88,57,792/ MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF SALES COMMISSION , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT REPRESENTS INCENTIVES/TURNOVER DISCOUNTS GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED CHANNEL PARTNER S BY WAY OF CREDIT NOTE SUBJECT TO ACHIEVEMEN T OF QUARTERLY / ANNUAL TARGETS. IN THIS REGARD HE ALSO TOOK NOTE OF ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE PAYMENT DO ES NOT QUALIFY EITHER AS FEES FO R TECHNICAL SERVICE OR ROYALTY AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PAYMENT MADE W OULD NOT QUALIFY AS BROKERAGE OR COM MISSION TO BRING IT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE W OULD NOT ATTRACT TDS PROVISION. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. CONTESTING THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF RENT, INTEREST, CONTRACT LABOUR CHARGES , FREIGHT AND FORWARDING CHARGES, THE BASIC CONTENTION OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DELETED PART OF THE DISALLOWANCE BY ENTERTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF 7 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED , BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. WHEREAS , BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ASSESSEE PRODUCED FRESH EVIDENCES AND WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS RELYING UPON SUCH EVIDENCES. THUS , HE SUBMITTED THE ISSUE RELATING TO AFORESAI D DISALLOWANCES SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJU DI CATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SO FAR AS DELETION OF DISA LLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF SALES COMMISSION , THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED , WITHOUT RECODING ANY FINDING WHETHER THERE IS A PRINCIPLE AGENT RELATIONSHIP IN EXISTENCE OR NOT, L EARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THUS , HE SUBMITTED , THE DECISION OF L EARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SH OULD BE REVERSED. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUBMITTED , NO FRESH EVIDENCES WERE ENTERTAINED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED , THE POWER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS CO TERMINUS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDING, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CAN ALSO MAKE SUCH A ENQUIRY AS HE MAY DEEM FIT FOR COMING TO A PROPER CONCLUSION. HE SUBMITTED , IN EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD ENQUIRED INTO THE ISSUES RELATING 8 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. TO DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS , HE SUBMITTED , THERE IS NO FLAW IN THE DECI SI ON OF LEARNED COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS) O N THE ISSUE. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF SALES COMMISSION , THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , ON FACTUAL VERIFICATION LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT MADE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BROKERAGE OR COMMIS SION. THEREFORE, HE HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR , EITHER FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX OR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE FACTS ON RECORD ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN RESPE CT OF PAYMENT OF RENT, INTEREST AND CONTRACT LABOUR CHARGES , THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT A LOWER RATE ON THE STREN GTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT LOWER RATE. IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT AND FORWARDING CHARGES , PART OF THE PAYMENT WAS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OCTROI/ENTRY TAX. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT , IN COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDING , IN RESPONS E TO QUERY RAISED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF TAX AT LOWER RATE . F URTHER , THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUC TED AT THE PRESCRIBED RATE AS PER THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 9 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. DEPARTMENT AND THE PAYMENTS WHICH WERE NOT COVERED UNDER SUCH CERTIFICATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS VOLUNTARILY AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT THE PRESCRIBED RATE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT COVERED UNDER THE LOW DEDUCTION TAX CERTIF ICATE S ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WHEN THE LOW DEDUCTION TAX CERTIFICATE S WERE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF , THERE IS NO REASON WHY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CANNOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THOSE CERTIFICATE S AND GRANT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE . IN OUR VIEW , THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 46A. IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER , TH E POWER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BEING CO TERMINUS WITH THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER , HE IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN CONDUCT TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). IN SO FAR AS PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND FORWARDING CHARGES, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMONSTRATED BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT PART OF SUCH PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF OCTROI/ENTRY TAXES PAID. UPON DUE 10 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. CONSIDERATION OF SUCH FACT , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN PART. THE AFORESAID DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BEING RENDERED ON TH E BA SIS OF FACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE ISSUE , NEEDS TO INTERFERENCE. EVEN , OTHERWISE ALSO , AS PER ASSESSING OFFICERS OWN ADMI SSION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF RENT, INTEREST, CONTRACT LABOUR CHARGES, FREIGHT AND FORWARDING CHARG ES AT A LOWER RATE AND NOT AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISION. THUS FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT IS A CASE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND NOT A CASE OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX . THEREFORE, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S . K . TEKRIWAL , 361 ITR 432, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISION ALSO , THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS UNSUSTAINA BLE. AS REGARDS PAYMENT OF SALES COMMISSION , IT APPEARS FROM RECORD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE IS TOWARD S INCENTIVE / TURNOVER DISCOUNT TO AUTHORIZE D CHANNEL PARTNER S BY WAY OF CREDIT NOTE SUBJECT TO ACHIEVEMENT OF CERTAIN TARGET S. THUS , THE PAYMENT MADE DOES NOT COME STRICTLY WITHIN THE MEANING OF BROKERAGE / COMMISSION. THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. INTERVET INDIA P. LTD. 2014 49 TAXMANN.COM 14 (BOMBAY) CLEARLY SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID WE 11 M/S FORBES TECHNOSYS LTD. UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .10.2019 SD/ - N.K.PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30 .10.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER SH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI