KAMLA HARDASANI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 23(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6397/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4847 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUNKUMAR DR LAST
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH S ATHAVALE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 133(6); 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04 KAMLA HARDASANI J - 310, VARDHAMAN NAGAR, JN. OF. R.P. RD. & M.G. RD. MULUND (W), MUMBAI - 400080. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(2)(4), C - 10 PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN (2 ND F LOOR) , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI - 4000 07 . PAN NO. ABCPH 7731G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. RAJESH S. ATHAVALE, AR REVENUE BY : MR. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH & MR. CHAUDHARY ARUNKUMAR , DR LAST DATE OF HEARING : 15/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2003 - 04 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 11 [IN SHORT CIT(A)], MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, T HE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE I. T. ACT IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 2 2. ON TH E FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES AND IN L AW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT IS INVALID AND BAD IN L AW. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT, (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO S ALE OF SHARES BY HOLDING THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BOGUS AND ALSO THE LONG TERMCAPITAL GAI NS SHOWN IN THE RETURN IS BOGUS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AND SIMUL TANEOUSLY DIRECTING HIM COLLECT DETAILS IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT FROM T HE RECORDS SEIZED FROM THE BROKER SHRI MUKESHCHOKSHI AND HIS ASSOCIATES AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF DGIT (INV.) OR THE A.O. OF SHRI MUKESHCHOKSHI AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND T AX ON LY SUCH AMOUNT AS HE WOULD DETERMINE TO BE T HE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE APPELL ANT FROM S HRI MUKESHCHOKSHI AND HIS ASS OCIATE CONCERNS U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.( A) ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH THE CLAIM OF 54EC OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE 1 ST AND 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. THUS THE ABOVE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. WE NOW TURN TO THE 3 RD , 4 TH AND 5 TH GROUND OF APPEAL. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2003 - 04 ON 17.09.2002 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,16,550/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( AO) RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, UNIT 1(4), MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS DDIT] THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 25.11.2009 IN THE CASE OF MAHASAGAR SECURITIES P. LTD. ( NOW ALAG KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 3 SECURITIES PVT. LTD.) THAT THE ABOVE CONCERN AND ITS RELATED GROUP OF 34 ODD COMPANIES (THE PROMINENT ONE INCLUDES M/S GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD.) RUN BY MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI WERE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES AND IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVI DING BOGUS SPECULATION PROFIT. AS PER THE SAID INFORMATION, ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES FROM IT WAS THE APPELLANT WHO HAD PROCURED SUCH BILLS FROM M/S GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD. IT IS ALSO REVEALED THAT NONE OF THE COMPANIES RUN BY SHRI CHOKSHI HAD A VALID LI CENSE AS A BROKER TO TRADE ON ANY STOCK EXCHANGE AS ON THE DATE OR DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION WAS CA RRIED OUT FOR THE BENEFICIARIES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT, SHRI CHOKSHI HAD CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH VARIOUS COMPANIES LIKE GOLDSTAR ETC. RUN BY HIS OFFICE AND THESE COMPANIES USED TO ISSUE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES ALSO. THE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6 ) OF THE ACT FROM SEBI VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 06.10.2010 TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT NOTES ENCLOSED WITH THE SAID LETTER HAVE BEEN PASSED THROUGH SEBI. THE AO RECEIVED A LETTER DATED 14.10.2010 FROM SEBI STATING THAT NO TRADES WERE FOUND TO BE EXECUTED FOR THE COMBINATION OF MEMBER AND CLIENT CODE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2001 TILL 31.03.2005. IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE SAID TRANSACTION OF ALLEGED SHARES BE NOT TREATED AS NON - GENUINE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY STAT ING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES IN CASH, TAKEN ACTUAL DELIVERY, THE KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 4 SAME WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, SOLD THE SHARES THROUGH THE BROKER, SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN ACCOUNT PAY EE CHEQUES ETC. THUS IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TREATMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE IMPUGNED SHARES AND BROKERAGE PAID AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. IN FURTHER SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED VIDE LETTER DATED 02.12.2010, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MET THE BROKER AT A PARTY AND AS PER THE SUGGESTION OF THE BROKER, SCRIPT WAS PURCHASED IN CASH AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING THE CHEQUE BOOK. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE SHARES AND PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SAID SHARES WERE SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO FOUND THAT NO SUCH COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATES WERE SUBMITTED IN HIS OFFICE. IN SUBSEQUENT LETTER DATED 08.12.2010, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, THE FOLLOWING: FURTHER WE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO HUMBLY SUBMIT TO AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) THE GAINS MAY BE TREATED AS TAXABLE LONG - T ERM CAPITAL GAINS AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY, AS THE NSE HAS INFORMED THAT NO TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. HENCE, IT CAN BE TREATED AS AN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION ON WHICH NO STT IS PAID. HOWEVER, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR. CHOKSHI AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SEBI AND ALSO THE FACT THAT NO PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SHARES WERE SUBMITTED, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF SALE TRANSACTION OF RS.5,41,125/ - AND BROKERAGE PAID OF RS.68/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 5 5 . IN APPEAL , TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR GIVING THE DOCUMENTS AND OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 24.04.2012 FROM THE AO (WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT P AGE 8 - 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) THE LD. CIT(A) PROVIDED A COPY OF IT TO THE APPELLANT FOR REPLY, IF ANY. IN RESPONSE TO IT THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 10 - 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT FROM ANSWERS TO QUESTION NUMBER 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 ETC. OF STATEMENT OF SHRI CHOKSHI RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 11.12.2009, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND ALSO HE EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND DETAILS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN VARIOUS BOOK SEIZED. FURTHER, DURING THE CROSS - EXAMINATION OF SHRI CHOKSHI BEFORE THE AO, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND THESE WERE OF F MARKET TRANSACTION S. T HE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI CHOKSHI AND HIS CROSS - EXAMINATION BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ACTUAL BUT WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR WHICH CASH HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREAFTER, CHEQUE OF EVEN AMOUNTS, SHOWN AS LTCG HAS BEEN GIVEN BY MR. CHOKSHI IN LIEU O F SUCH CASH PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER REFERRING TO THE ITAT ORDERS IN CASES OF MR. CHOKSHI AND ASSOCIATES, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ALL THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS. KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 6 AS REGARDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SHE HAS SHOWN AN INCOME OF RS .2,91,810/ - ONLY UNDER THE HEAD LTCG OUT OF TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.2,95,987/ - AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,41,125/ - AGAINST RECEIPT OF RS.2,95,987/ - CANNOT BE MADE AND FURTHER DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS RESULTING INTO LTCG OF RS.5,41,125/ - HAVE NO T BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 5.2 HELD AS UNDER: 5.2 THE FACTS ARE CONSIDERED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COLLECT DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS IS THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE RECORDS SEIZED FROM THE BROKER, SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI AND HIS ASSOCIATES AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF DGIT (INV.) OR THE AO OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI AND OTHER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI AND HIS ASSOCIATE C ONCERNS CORRECTLY AS PER RECORDS AND TAX ONLY SUCH AMOUNT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND BEFORE GI VING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. ANY D ISCREPANCY SHOULD BE VERIFIED THOROUGHLY IN CONSULTATION WITH DDIT (INV.) WHO IS IN CUSTODY OF SEIZED RECORDS AND ONLY THE CORRECT AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SALE PROCEEDS BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE TAXED. 6 . BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL S OF THE ASSESSEE FILE A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING (I ) RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003 - 04 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2002, (II) WORKING OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR AY 2003 - 04, (III) COPY OF PURCHASE AND SALES BILLS FOR SHARES ISSUED BY THE BROKER AND RECEIPT FROM THE BROKE R FOR PAYMENT OF SHARES PURCHASED, (IV) LEDGER OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CONFIRMED BY THE BROKER AND THE RELEVANT BANK BOOK WHICH REFLECTS THE SALES PROCEEDS, (V) COPY OF REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER, (VI) LETTER DATED 19.07.2012 SUBMITTED TO THE CIT (A), (VII) LETTER DATED 06.06.2012 SUBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) , (VIII) LETTER DATED 09.01.2012 SUBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) AND (IX) KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 7 RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2002 - 03 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET. THE LD. COUNSEL S ALSO FILE CHRONOLOGY OF DATES AND EVENTS AND SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68/69 QUA THE CLAIMS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF SHRI CHOKSHI AND HIS ASSOCIATE COMPANIES IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS BY THE TRIB UNAL: 1. ACIT V. JOGIA PROPERTIES LTD. (ITA NO. 6106 & 6107/M/2012) (MUM) 2. KAMLESH MUNDRA V. ITO (ITA NO. 6248/M/2012) (MUM) 3. JATIN AJMERA V. ITO (ITA NO. 5569/M/2014) (MUM) 4. ITO V. RASILA GADA (ITANO. 1773/M/2010) (MUM) 5. HAMIDA RATTONSEY V. DCIT (ITA NO. 5069/M/2009) (MUM) 6. MUKESH MAROLIA V. ACIT (6 SOT 247) (MUM) 7. CIT V. MUKESH MAROLIA (ITA NO. 456 OF 2007) (BOM - HC) 8. ACIT V. VINEET SURESHCHANDRA AGARWAL (ITA NO. 1442/AHD/2013) (AHD) 9. ANANTRAI SHAH V. ITO (ITA NO. 1842/M/2012) (MUM) 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT IN THE FOLLOWING TWO CASES THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON SIMILAR FACTS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 1. DISHA N. LALWANI V. ITO (ITA NO. 6398/MUM/2012) FOR AY 2003 - 04, 2. LEELA G. LALWANI V. ITO (ITA NO. 6399/MUM/2012) FOR AY 2003 - 04 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE AS RECORDED BY THE AO, IN KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 8 RESPONSE TO HIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, SEBI INFORMED V IDE LETTER DATED 14.10.2010 STATING THAT NO TRADES WERE FOUND TO BE EXECUTED FOR THE COMBINATION OF MEMBER AND CLIENT CODE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2001 TILL 31.03.2005. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL S AS MENTIONED AT PARA 5 HEREINABOVE. WE FIND THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTUAL MATRIX, THE ABOVE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT BY THE ITAT D BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DISHA N. LALWANI V. ITO (ITA NO. 6398/MUM/2012) DA TED 22.03.2017 AND LEELA G. LALWANI V. ITO (ITA NO. 6399/MUM/2012) DATED 01.08.2018. IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO MENTION BELOW THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AT PARA 5 IN LEELA G. LALWANI (SUPRA) : 5. ALTHOUGH LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUED, UNDER IDENTICAL FACTUAL MATRIX, HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES RELATIVE TITLED AS DISHA N.LALWANI VS. ITO [ITA NO. 6398/MUM/2012 DATED 22/03/2017], THE RELEVANT PORTION OF W HICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW: - 3.1. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID STATEMENT AND THE FACTS IF ANALYZED, THE FACTUAL MATRIX OOZING OUT IS THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES SUCH AS LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. IT IS EVIDENTLY CLEAR THAT OFF - MARKET TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLLUSION WITH SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GIVEN THE COLOUR OF GENUINE TRANSACTION B UT FACT REMAINS THAT ONLY PAPER WORK WAS DONE IN LIEU OF CASH AND THERE WAS NO ACTUAL GAIN/TRANSACTION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 9 IDENTICALLY IN THE CASE OF MUKESH CHOKSHI/ASSOCIATES/FIRMS OF MUKESH CHOKSHI, THERE ARE VARIOUS ORDERS LIKE M/S GOLDSTAR FINVEST P VT. LTD. ITA NO.4625/MUM/2005 AND 5000/MUM/2005 ORDER DATED 28/03/2008, RICHMOND SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (SUBSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS MHANAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND NOW KNOWN AS ALAG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.) ITA NO.4624/MUM/2005 AND M/S ALPHA CHEMIE TRADE AGENCIES PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.4999/MUM/2005) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 ALONG WITH THE CASE OF M/S MIHIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.4912/MUM/2005) ORDER DATED 30/05/2008. ALL THESE ORDERS AND THE FACT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS ACTUALLY NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION/STOCK BROKING BUT WAS MERELY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF SHARE TRANSACTION SHOWING THE BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ETC. AND WAS USED TO GET COMMISSION INCOME AT THE RATE OF 0.15% OF THE TOTAL TRANSACTION. THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH CAMOUFLAGE. 8 .1 FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER S OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/05/2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( C.N. PRASAD) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 13/05/2019 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. KAMLA HARDASANI ITA NO. 6397 /MUM/201 2 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) ITAT, MUMBAI